The nice thing is that they've compared the latest version of Ubuntu which is 2 months old to the 7 years old OS :))
Christian Lindberg
· 1 year ago
THIS! Heck, slipstream XP to be up to date and you can put anything in it, office 2007? Check, Photoshop CS3? Check! Automated install? What is this foul black magic Linux users scream!
Comparing the install media of a OS that is 7 years old versus one that's 2 months is retarded, especially when we see that Ubuntu ain't much better on it itself.
Joseph Alois Ratzinger
· 1 year ago
I love this from the callenger's blog:
Today, I found myself featured on the Linux Haters Blog. I’ve heard of this blog before, but didn’t give it much thought, as most of the posts coming from the author are nothing more than Microsoft fan-boy fanaticism. It’s hard to take any of the posts seriously. After reading his post regarding a couple of mine, I just thought to myself, “Oh, brother. Is this guy for real, or is he all about the press, leading many, many readers on?”. I spent some time on the blog, digging through posts and comments, and I could find nothing intellectual stimulating conversation above “Linux SUX, Windows RULES!”. So, this post is challenge the author to produce something intellectual that will actually show some logic behind his posts (and maybe the commentators behind their comments).
Sorry Aaron dude, but it did make me chuckle a bit. It's not all "Linux SUX, Windows RULES!" (although some commenters are like that....) Some good points have been brought up by LH regarding Linux's shortcomings on the desktop, and if Linux fixed the problems mentioned here, it would be a stellar operating system.
Unfortunately, the chances of that happening don't look too good right now...
bic
· 1 year ago
"Today, I found myself featured on the Linux Haters Blog. [...] So, this post is challenge the author to produce something intellectual that will actually show some logic behind his posts (and maybe the commentators behind their comments)."
So how exactly is this blog different from any pro-Linux zealot's blog? It's just on the opposite side of the coin.
Apparently, lusers can dish it out, but they can't take it.
vanjab
· 1 year ago
100% agree. I started reading this blog simply because I was impressed at the mix of hate and knowledge in the Linux X Graphics article.
unbutusux
· 1 year ago
LOL. He doesn't know about unattended installs, RIS, WDS, sysprep + ghost or true image, or anything else for that matter.
No scripting? LOL. Yeah, cscript + wscript hosts (vbscript + jscript) and now PowerShell, plus, you can still install anything else you want for that purpose.
Same story for not knowing about VNC.
Seriously, I wouldn't hire this guy at minimum wage as an admin.
owned
· 1 year ago
I wouldn't hire this guy as a janitor
nobody:nogroup
· 1 year ago
I don't hate Windows or Windows users. I really hate this discussions about linux and Windows. I use which ever system is best for the job that is to be done. And i'm really pissed of by this Power-User mentality from Windows or linux fanatics.
Let me use what ever system i want. If you like Windows then use it. If linux is too complex for you then don't use it. If you find a bug then fix it (if you are able to) or let somebody of the developers know about it. But don't use linux the wrong way and then blame it for your faults.
"RIS, WDS, sysprep + ghost or true image" ...no, sorry. No such packages here. Hey, we are talking about linux. So let us do it right. What about booting our systems over the network and mounting all the needed filesystems over the network too? No need for hard drives in the client.
Windows Scripting. ROFL. Yes, sure it is there. Let us compare checking for open files in our shared folders.
This is called KISS principle. One command, one thing,...
And now the windowish scripting version:
Set oNT = GetObject("WinNT://" &SERVER & "/LanManServer") Set wso = CreateObject("WScript.Shell") CHECKOPEN=D:\path\to\my\shared\files
For Each oRes In oNT.Resources if(InStr(CStr(oRes.Path),CHECKOPEN,1))then WScript.Echo CStr(oRes.Path) end if Next
I call this one "i've just triggered a bug" version. The last returned Object is not an Object. *CONFUSED* What's wrong here. It's the way MSDN told me to do?
PowerShell? And again Power*. Argh. I hate that. PowerShell is the new shell that will not run an all Windows versions. At least on Windows 2008 Server without GUI there is NO WAY to install it! Correct me if i'm wrong.
It's all Windows isn't it? Sorry, but my life is to short to write 10+ scripts for one single problem.
doomicon
· 1 year ago
"It's free they say, if you can get it to run.. The geeks say 'HEY, that's half the fun!' but I have a girl, and things to get done, the Linux OS SUCKS!" -TDT&B
Anon E Moose
· 1 year ago
Yeah, the install-time was a weak argument that Lin-nuts tromp out all the time. Meanwhile here's my 3 year old XP box and it's only just starting to look a bit crusty. Damn me but I might have to reinstall in 2009.
As to the comment below about it taking 7 years to get XP right. Durrr? Damn me, I guess I should not have adopted it after SP1. I didn't realize how unusable it was. Why did I wait for SP1? Because I had a perfectly fine win2k install that I didn't feel like blowing away until I actually needed a feature in XP (and that was the shadow copy service that makes backups so much nicer to run).
Damn me, I guess that makes me another Windows Fanboy(tm). Didn't know I was a fan of anything, but I guess if sitting down at a PC and using it without a care in the world makes me a fanboy, then I guess I'm guilty.
Yep, old hand at ghost and acronis (and yes, I do know that Acronis is Linux-based. So what? it's not a desktop OS is it now). I update my images maybe once a year, mainly because of changes to third party apps. Rolling new patches into the image is secondary. nLite is nice, and vLite is also nice. I use nLite mainly to make an unattended install image and to lock-down/remove things I don't want the kiddies getting into. Group Policy applied through Active Directory does the rest seamlessly.
Oh, and this wonderful Firefox browser? Guess what? I'm going to have to axe it this fall because there does not seem to be a workable way to lock down the proxy settings. I've used the front motion edition, and the firefox.adm GPO template, and it just does not effing work. So we're back to IE, which I can bend to my will completely via group policy.
And now for users. Seems to me when I create a new user through the Users And Groups applet, it sets them up in the "users" group and NOT the Administrators group. Imagine that? Of course we don't set up users that way with AD.
No OS is ready right out of the box. ALL of them need to be tuned for the environment they run in. The argument of who bundles the most crapware is spurious at best. On Windows PCs it's called "bloat" and on Linux distros it's called we-have-more-stuff-on-our-CD-nyaa-nyaaa.
Microsoft is selling an Operating System. You know: that thing that sits between your I/O devices and your hardware upon which applications run? They aren't marketing Windows as your One Stop Put In A Disk PC Nirvana Onna Bun. I would rather have that then an OS that installs 3 different word processors, 5 different text editors, etc, by default and claim it's convenience. It's nothing but bloat.
I turn off the update notifier in most of the Linux installs I do because I'm sick of it telling me that there are updates for 200 odd languages I do not speak. Windows update provides a mechanism where at least I can tell it to never again show certain updates, whether it's at the website or through automatic updates.
As for RDP. I use RDP and VNC both. Visual quality of VNC sucks mightily, as does the response time. RDP is the superior experience. When I remote into a system I *don't* want the user interacting with it. If I do, then I suffer to use VNC.
Sorry for the rant. I'm just sick of these stupid comparisons. With Windows we have a mature and stable system. Vista got problems? OMG then stay with XP for a few years until you're satisfied! It's not like one new OS instantly obsoletes the old one. We used Win2k until '95 or so just because it did what was needed of it. We still have the odd 98 client around. Linux = moving target. You're always in the Early Adopter camp with desktop Linux, beta testing someone elses latest attempt at "teh awesome" Comparing one with the other is a stretch at best on home desktops, but in a multiuser client/server network what exactly can you possibly compare favorably with 2k2 server and Active Directory that isn't another proprietary solution like Novell?
Kokoro
· 1 year ago
Only 3 years? My XP system hasn't been reinstalled in 6 years !
Pareto
· 1 year ago
That's some bullshit right there.
Windows XP used to get so bogged down, it was a yearly ritual for me and others to have to reinstall once a year.
Jerry
· 1 year ago
That's some bullshit right there.
Windows XP used to get so bogged down, it was a yearly ritual for me and others to have to reinstall once a year.
Or, maybe, just maybe, you're simply a dumbfuck who doesn't know how to administer a Windows box.
Eben33zer Sp00ge
· 1 year ago
Or maybe, just maybe, your vaunted XP is a complete and utter turd and you're just too fucking stupid to recognize it. I understand.. It's fine. Stupid people have the right to an opinion too.
Fortunately those of us who are capable of thinking for ourselves, and indeed performing some basic troubleshooting, have the luxury of deciding which turd operating system we wish to use. I have never... NEVER gotten more than three years out of any Windows operating system that wasn't being used only for word processing. In fact I have to re-install my parents system for them about every two years and they're the most boring people ever.
It's not that I couldn't fix Windows when it became too crapped up, it's just that it was easier to re-install the whole fucking thing in an hour than to spend hours walking though the fucking registry or searching for whatever fucking DLL got hosed by the latest hang or windows update. Oh and I particularly loved the way Windows used to blame me when it shit itself and I had to power-cycle it.
So I switched to Linux and things are better. Sure it (Ubuntu) shits itself occasionally and sure I have never EVER had a successful upgrade which still pisses me off to no end. However even if the absolute worst happens I can drop in the install CD and reboot so that I can browse the net for support or access a filesystem. If I need a special utility for whatever I'm fixing I type "sudo apt-get install dcfldd" (or whatever). Even better, if the system is well and truly hosed I can reinstall without backing up all my data again - my home partition is mounted on a separate drive and Linux doesn't force me to jump through hoops to do so.
Yeah I've given up PC games but I have the 360 for that. I can't run Office 2007 (which I hate as much as OO, Office 2K3, WP, etc) and I don't need Photoshop. The beauty is that I didn't pay a fucking cent for this piece of shit. So when Ubuntu craps itself and leaves me staring at a hung X session where the cursor stupidly moves around but I can't interact with the system or switch to another virtual terminal, I'm not adding insult to injury by realizing that I was stupid enough to pay someone for this shit. I can have a complete system with all the equivalent functionality of a windows box, with less aggravation and I can save myself $500+.
If it doesn't work for you that's fine, but FFS stop bitching about it. You didn't pay a fucking cent for it and if you did , well stupid on you.
Freeman
· 1 year ago
Yeah, it's much better to reinstall everything every 6 months just to have access to the latest apps :-)
But hey, if your time is worth nothing then sure, Linux is cheaper.
Eben33zer Sp00ge
· 1 year ago
Meh, not even a valid argument. If I want the latest apps I can usually download the latest binaries from the project site (ex. OO) or a 3rd party package maintainer. I would have to do the same thing in XP. Updating is relatively automatic and requires zero effort on my part. Sure upgrading all the packages (i.e. a distro upgrade) would probably require some attention on my part since I have a bunch of non-standard repos configured. As I said the automatic upgrade process under Ubuntu isn't one of the reasons I use this distro. But the upgrade process is certainly no worse than going from 98 to 2k or to XP, for example, and there's no need to upgrade if what you're using is working for you. I can count on one finger the number of times I've had to "./configure; make; make install" with Ubuntu.
I spend at most, the same amount of time maintaining my Linux boxes as I did with my Windows systems and probably spend less time because I find that I can do a lot of things more quickly (ex software installation) under Linux. Even if worst comes to worst, I can completely rebuild my system, usually to the latest release with almost every package, except for any that have been deprecated or that might have stupid dependencies, in 30 - 40 minutes with the use of a relatively dumb script.
Yeah for the average user who wants to do what I do with my system Linux probably isn't for them, mind you the *average* user probably isn't using their system for the same things I am.
Anyways, my time is what it is. If I have nothing better to do then I don't mind screwing around with any system be it Linux, Mac or Windows. Linux works for me most of the time and when it doesn't I just rationalize that I didn't fork out any cash for it and if I was still running MS products I would probably be fucking around with them all the same but for different problems. I don't administer large numbers of systems which is probably just as well since Bozo-the-Wonder-Fuck below this post would probably juicing all over himself at the thought of imparting his vast knowledge to someone...
It's impossible to install Firefox 3 on an OS released 2 years ago. I've tried it myself on a VM, the binary downloaded from Mozilla website asks for GTK 2.10. Give it up for the awesomeness of Linux package management. Weeeee.
Freeman
· 1 year ago
What good is a package manager then if in the end I have to resort to download a binary from a website or trust third party packages? I'm sorry, but that model is completely broken.
I can download Firefox 3 today and it will work without a hitch on XP, an OS released almost 7 years ago. That, my friend, is a software platform. Try the same on any Linux distribution older than 2 years? 3 years? and tell me what happens.
nobody:nogroup
· 1 year ago
Reinstall? You mean upgrade.
Upgrading Debian woody (Version 3) to etch (Version 4) took me the following commands.
After 15 minutes and a downtime of about 30 seconds there it was. Guess what. All applications working like before the upgrade.
Tell us something about your upgrade steps from Windows 2000 to XP. Windows is the better and easier system, isn't it? ;-)
nobody:nogroup
· 1 year ago
sorry, wrong position :-)
Crunchinator
· 1 year ago
...So you're not a competent admin?
Crunchinator
· 1 year ago
All you need to do to keep XP running well is to defrag often, run disk cleanup or CCleaner often (all of which can be automated) and not be a complete retard when it comes to installing / uninstalling applications--in example, installing applications using the desktop folder as the destination.
Destro
· 1 year ago
Maybe you and your friends don't know how to use a computer.
app
· 1 year ago
I have an 11 year old, heavily used WinME machine that is quite stable and runs like a dream...a slow dream, but a good one. The only nightmarish part involved is really hardware related, with a slow CPU speed and not much RAM, which is not an OS related problem.
This PC is running 24/7, and I am actively using it at least 16-18 hours a day. I only reboot it about every 4-5 days. I have been using it as my main PC and dev box, simultaniously running a web server on it, and even for software testing for writing reviews. This is brutal stuff that most people do not use their computer for. I really "abuse" this baby.
But I also take good care of it. It hasn't needed a reinstall in over 4 years. In fact it runs better today than it did 4 years ago.
And we all know that XP is so much better than WinME. So if you are reinstalling XP yearly, something is seriously wrong, and I wouldn't say it was the OS's fault.
If I can make a single install of WinME run well with heavy "abusive" use for over 4 years, then XP should be able to run at least 8 years without a reinstall, providing your hardware doesn't quit on you, first.
lemonhead
· 1 year ago
on the last paragraph: my new laptop had vista preinstalled and ii added ubuntu(just for a spin, i usually prefer liveCDs for linux). 3 months later vista still works (albeit i get a clumsy feeling OS) ubuntu had 3(!) clean installs and the third has gone utterly nuts (NUTS i tell you). pfff i miss XP
luser
· 1 year ago
I've been *live*-updating (not supported by Novell) the *same* suse installation since 9.3 without serious issues. Try this with windows!
I have a virtual windows installation for some programs that don't run in linux and some system updates cause it to endlessly loop installing them when I shut down. This means that after applying some windows updates I'm unable to shut down the emulator cleanly. Neat.
lemonhead
· 1 year ago
nuts there too my friend.... i format XP every 2-3 months due to bir-rot-riot (hey users install stuff you know) but hardy madde a shame out of itself it does not even show shutdown reboot on the menu anymore, i have to go to a terminal and sudo reboot/powerof
Just Wondering
· 1 year ago
XP SP3, under *very* specific circumstances, caused a reboot loop. And what happens next? We get Linux Liars spouting off as though reboot loops were a common problem. Unless you could prove otherwise, by showing up the MS KB pages describing the problems.
luser
· 1 year ago
I'm not talking about a reboot loop here, some updates caused windows to loop installing them before system shutdown. This means that I'm unable to shutdown the vm cleanly for some time. This occurred 3 times with some system updates in the past month or two, I never said it was a common problem, I just reported what happened on a vm that I rarely use (3-4 times a month, if at all). Before calling someone a liar, you should at least make certain that you understand fully what they're talking about.
Soyuz
· 1 year ago
OK. your best post ever!!
Even after being a Luser, I must say it was a challenge taken and squashed accordingly. Unfortunately I will question the quality or source of the challenge but it WAS A CHALLENGE indeed! :)
A guy claiming to be sysadmin but not knowing about the automated windows install (I am not a sysadmin but even I have seen it's mentions). Unfortunately the ones that can provide you with quality challenge are busy doing real work and not having time to end up here.
I do strongly believe in the value proposition offered by FOSS and that works for me quite well!!! I don't need to prove that or refute you, but in a overall sense I do see the points you make and agree to many parts of it.
Ofcourse the style/presentation you have got is totally offensive (and in its mostly foul language) is not required. But this it your blog and you make the choices.
Anyway, me Luser saying bravo to you..
Ok, so that you don't get the wrong idea, not all of your rebuttuls are substantial. Come'n - you sure you didn't had to reinstall XP in 3 yrs just to refresh it and get the performance back. It's strange that in my circle of wusers they call it a ageing affect where you need to periodically make clean install to get the performance back or else windows ages and becomes slow.
hmmmmmm.....
grumpy
· 1 year ago
What's strange is that Linux user don't see that they have the same problem. Sure, a server setup can run for years and years, but that's not because it's Linux, it's because it's a SERVER. You don't install random crap on it, you don't pollute the system. You set it up, and you let it run. And occasionally, you update it. And guess what? The same works on Windows. At work we've got plenty of Windows servers that have run flawlessly for 4 years (Since they were bought). No "ageing effect" there. The "ageing effect" comes from people installing crap that never gets properly removed. And Linux has the same problem. An everyday desktop Linux system belonging to an "average user", one where the user happily installs and removes software on a daily basis, certainly won't last for 3 or 4 years without any performance degradation either.
That said, I thought the scripting language rebuttal was a bit weak. True, scripting languages exist on Windows. But far from everything can be scripted. Very few Windows applications play nice with a command line interface. That's one of the (few?) genuine advantages Linux has.
Joseph Alois Ratzinger
· 1 year ago
That said, I thought the scripting language rebuttal was a bit weak. True, scripting languages exist on Windows. But far from everything can be scripted. Very few Windows applications play nice with a command line interface. That's one of the (few?) genuine advantages Linux has.
You're right.
But, again, that's the problems with the few advantages of Linux, they can only be useful to the advanced user. To the average joe, they wouldn't know anything about it.
On OSX they seem to have a good balance with AppleScript. As scripting languages go, its one of the easiest to pick up, and most good Mac developers provide the abilities to use Script to access all kinds of functionality in their programs.
Brian
· 1 year ago
Microsoft isn't exactly sitting on their hands with regard to scripting.
99% of the users won't be able to script anything and the 1% of them who can, are able to do their job with PowerShell or VBS (I've seen admins doing lots of working and useful VBS scripts in the past years) and at the extreme with easy to use programming languages like C# but for most users, it's a non-issue. and the good thing is, for power users who need scripts in productivity software, MSOffice is perfectly scriptable (I remember automating tasks in Excel long time ago)
Yay! PowerShell! It's like programming .NET, but with a whole new syntax to learn!
Brian
· 1 year ago
You're doing it wrong.
Crunchinator
· 1 year ago
PowerShell 2.0 looks pretty good. But you know what my favorite part about PowerShell is? Passing the output of commands as objects rather than text which makes piping commands together so much easier as you don't have to worry about format. Linux, get on the ball and copy this feature.
Soyuz
· 1 year ago
Yes. U r right!! Windows is catching up finally. :P
Mehrdad
· 1 year ago
Right! and it worths noting that the aging effect is much lower in Vista as it constantly improves its caching strategy with SuperFetch and defragments hard disks in the background.
Soyuz
· 1 year ago
Ha Ha Ha!! When did I say that we don't have to do it in Linux based desktops too. I am sure a savvy user can avaid that problem in either desktop, but we are talking in general, right!
But firstly - I don't see how calling you a "duck" can inherently imply that I am not one too.
I agree to what u said but with the notes that Linux based desktops has a lesser extent to that problem with support (direct/indirect) of many things like:
1) No central registry pollution (But thats not to say that a load of init.d daemons with its compartmentalized conf files wont age to die)
2) Directory permission / control puts a check around stomping all over the file system
lot more i can think of .. but thats not the point
I am a happy user of OpenSUSE/KDE, Ubuntu/GNOME and XP. I love all these platforms based on the tasks/need and in many one can not be painlessly substituted by the others.
Not going to technical reasons, just being an user, I face the ageing affect in windows a lot more than in Linux based desktops OSes. Where as my Linux boxes are a lot more "messy" boxes with constant playing with it where my XP box is a "Install/Configure Once" as I know my needs in that box and that is a pretty constant set for last many years. In fact its decreasing in size as my FOSS knowledge are getting better over years.
So, there is it, an user experience, no forensic, but indeed a common one shared with many other similar user in my circle. Take it or leave it!
nobody:nogroup
· 1 year ago
No, there are no such aging effects on linux.
LIS
· 1 year ago
For me, it's over. I've removed the Linux partitions from both of my machines. I've used Linux for the past eight years, and it's always been a decade behind the rest of the software world - hopelessly outdated, marginally useful, and absolutely waste of time.
I think that even LH posts are just a regurgitation of usenet posts from 1983, when Stallman announced GNU, and was called an idiot.
I don't longer care.
Good night, and good fight.
LIS
· 1 year ago
Sorry guys, I changed my mind again and deleted all my Windows partitions. I will now be using Ubuntu "Horny Hedgehog" full time my my operating system of choice. I take back everything I ever said about Linsux.
Now excuse me while I suck off Richard Stallman, my personal hero and dominatrix.
Cheers!
.troll
· 1 year ago
Good luck LIS, was good arguing with you.
RMS
· 1 year ago
Do Not Use My Name In Vain.
RMS
RMS
· 1 year ago
*eats hair*
nobody:nogroup
· 1 year ago
It looks funny when he does that. :-)
tinkertim
· 1 year ago
So many *nix system administrators make some fatal assumptions:
1 - Everyone else is a system administrator (or wants to be) 2 - A desktop is just a little server that happens to be running a window manager
Most people just want their goddamn computers and applications to work. Thanks for making this point in a very entertaining way.
Psyn
· 1 year ago
They also make the fatal assumption that they're a system administrator because they use *nix. Dicking around with an xorg.conf file because you can't get your computer to function properly doesn't make you an administrator.
rd
· 1 year ago
whoa whoa WHOA! that "respectfully" at the end of your post was COMPLETELY uncalled for.
i think you're getting soft on us, LinuxHater. more troll posts and less well thought-out and well written posts or even HELPFUL, plz
vanjab
· 1 year ago
Comment 19 comes from a future where Xorg and samba configuration files must not exist: "Since you have already addressed some differences between Linux and Windows, allow me to point out a difference between their users. Linux users spend most of their time using their computers, while Windows users spend most of their time and money trying to make their computers usable."
Crunchinator
· 1 year ago
If by "using their computers" you actually mean "dicking around with their distro and breaking shit left and right" then I guess that'd be somewhat accurate. Although in my experience most Windows boxes are working, maybe not optimally, but they are working and half the users I see continue working even if there is some problem with their box to which they are usually oblivious to.
h1d
· 1 year ago
5 days no new post. zomfg. has linux finally rose up to look on par with other os? on another topic, this disqus thing is quite dumb when it never crops any of the posts after making the page bloody long.
The problem with “third party” software is not Linux, it is the offerings from some software developers that do not take into account the fact there are non-technical users that want to install their stuff on Linux.
Utter arse.
.troll
· 1 year ago
Errrm, tard-con one even. I am a daft cunt.
thecodewitch
· 1 year ago
.troll said: Errrm, tard-con one even. I am a daft cunt.
At least "tard-con" is funnier than fucking "Wait for the popping noise".
Wait for the popping noise????????? Who the fuck let these idiots in here?
Even their insults are as obtuse and broken as the freetard freedom software they use and whine about.
You know, I remember back when the lusers who used to post comments here were at least mildly entertaining. This new batch hurts my brain.
.troll
· 1 year ago
@thecodewitch good to have you back mate, now we can get some real bitchin' going on.
Honestly the biggest reason for this batch of comments being fucked up, beyond the usual, is that LH turned off the fucking threading. This was after everyone had been replying to each other for several days, so it makes about as much sense as a sea lion trying to rape a penguin.
thecodewitch
· 1 year ago
@.troll Honestly the biggest reason for this batch of comments being fucked up, beyond the usual, is that LH turned off the fucking threading. This was after everyone had been replying to each other for several days, so it makes about as much sense as a sea lion trying to rape a penguin.
I don't think the disqus guys really thought this through. Flattening threaded comments and sorting them by timestamp is a completely moronic feature to support. Sure, it was a mistake for LH to use it, but such a stupid feature shouldn't even be an option. The whole thread is now broken, and somehow makes even less sense than when it was threaded. Strangely appropriate though, because this is a Linux Hating blog, and this is the kind of feature you can expect from your average piece of linux software - programmer implements a useless, moronic option, because he can't be bothered implementing the option the users actually need.
A commenting system like the one on digg should be doable.
About the sea lion with the penguin - I don't know what the fuck to say to that. I was thinking of using it somehow to make fun of lusers / rms, but you know, wouldn't be fair to the penguin.
.troll
· 1 year ago
!LUSER ALERT!
From here: Linux Haters are folk that, for some reason or another, decide “I Hate Linux and You Should Too!”. Most of the time they advocate for Microsoft and its’ products, but not always. In any case, these folk tend to promulgate specific myths about Linux. One of these myths is that software is hard to install on Linux.
What a load of fucking horseshit. The fucking 'tard completely forgets third-party software or updates, and just creates a shit OGG video of installing Abhiword from the package manager. Then, because he's using Fluxbox, he has to run a line in the terminal to update the menus. That's fine, but it's not exactly great advertising is it!
Oh, and of course, hating Linux has to be all about Microsoft doesn't it. It can't just be that Free software has some deficiencies.
Naturally this was posted on Groklaw's newspicks, home of PJ, the Shill Finder General. She posted a whole heap of bullshit about some poor bastard who was burned by Linux being shit.
rockmelinuxdamus
· 1 year ago
What a typical luser. Is anyone that could possibly be swayed by his video going to have ogg theora codecs? Or is he preaching to the choir?
V
· 1 year ago
I've yet to decide if I like Cracked.com better as a way to read something that makes you laugh, or Linux Hater. Not to say that I don't take Linux Hater seriously (to a point); I do. I love the single-minded derision available here, yet the ability to speak sense and point out what is wrong with the FOSS in general and Linux distributions in particular. Good show.
Anonymous coward
· 1 year ago
Boss of gOS says Linux's wonderful package managers don't work for computers aimed at the consumer market (desktop, notebooks, netbooks).
"From a general operating system perspective - there's still a lot of packages to download. That's not something you are going to see my mom use," Mann said bluntly. "Until it gets to the point where it's drop-dead simple or devices lock down functionality, you aren't going to see much uptake among consumers."
Perhaps he's speaking from experience as Walmart yanked his gOS computers earlier this year because they didn't sell well. Note how he didn't say that his customers should "RTFM, looser" or similar stuff that you find here. This is because he's not living in his parents' basement, he's running a business and has to make money and to do that he has to make Linux adapt to his customers needs because his customers don't have a week to mess around with xconf.org.
wranner
· 1 year ago
I like your blog so much, i disabled AdBlock for this site! :)
Keep going, great writing and to the point!
Linux Rules
· 1 year ago
LINUX? MORE LIKE LINSUX!
foo
· 1 year ago
Best fucking post, EVER!
Linux Rules
· 1 year ago
You're mom
lol fail
· 1 year ago
you are mom???
fail!
nobody:nogroup
· 1 year ago
you mean..
$ who loves mum
I love this command too. :-)
Anonymous Coward
· 1 year ago
Man, look at this comment on Aarons's blog:
-- "Boy, anytime someone makes a cogent argument in favor of Linux all the trolls come out to feed. When one person makes a sensible argument and everyone else resorts to name calling and Linux sux comments it’s clear they are threatened. They must know deep down that Linux is more than a passing fad. They must know that windows and osx while convenient operating systems have serious flaws. They must know that that Linux model of freedom will slowly chisel away at the proprietary world. Freedom is a scary thing and many people react negatively in support of fascism even when freedom is probably better for them.
Is Linux perfect? No. But neither is windows or osx. Is one better than the other? Yes - but that depends on your needs. Saying Linux sux and pointing to what doesn’t work only proves that it doesn’t fit your needs or that you simply lack the patience to change or the ability. Linux is perfect for me because I can do everything I want to and it doesn’t cost me a dime. I flat out hate the windows and osx models. I can’t stand dealing with all the issues involved with running windows (like dealing with AV and all other malware issues and surfing the web to find a app every time I have something I want to do, and on and on), and I hate the osx model of the apple way or the highway. Others love that and more power to them. For me, however, they both suck, period.
Wow. They are really full of themselves. THEY are the bastion against fascism!?
"Use what you want. Live and let live" !?
Yeah, right! I will keep this in mind, when I see another "this site is blocked for IE" page.
Crunchinator
· 1 year ago
I seriously don't get this "freedom" thing in Linux. What "freedoms" do you gain? The "freedom" to spend years learning a programming language, then taking the time to learn about a particular piece of software, then modify it for your own use? The "freedom" to choose between various shitty components in your OS--which to some extent can be done in Windows as there are replacements for Explorer, CMD, Regedt, and a few other things? I use Linux and I'm no more "free" on Linux than I am on Windows. Actually, given the abysmal support for anything proprietary in Linux I'd argue that it's more fascist than anything else. So what if I have the source? Big deal, I program and I still have no interest in dicking around with these open source projects.
At least you don't have to pay for Linux? So what? I spent $40 on Windows XP Pro and $20 on Microsoft Office Pro 2003 via a HUP / EPP. My college gives all CSCI students a copy of Windows Vista Business for free. Everything else on my computer was legally obtained at no cost (freeware). $60 dollars spent nearly six years ago is ass-wiping money.
Anonymous Coward
· 1 year ago
The "freedom thing in Linux" is quite easy to understand: It is basicaly fascism.
I think most Linux supporters don't notice it themselves, but, their thinking is very clearly totalitarian.
You know how the German Democratic Republic, the communistic germany, that existed after world war 2 until the fall of the wall, called the Berlin wall? "antifaschistischer Schutzwall". That means "anti-fascistic protective barrier". So, in their lingo, the wall protected the "good" GDR against the evil capitalistic Germany, the federal republic of Germany.
But, clearly, the fascistic one was the GDR. This state had secret police, torture rooms etc.
The same thing with north and south korea basicaly. Have you seen North Korean propaganda?
That is exactly what George Orwell wrote about. And the "Linux community" has all the ingredients that would classify totalitarism:
Choice is good, UNTIL you chose something that the party doesn't approve! Choice is good if you chose firefox, if you chose IE, then you're a moron and you should be blocked and choice is bad!
Manipulation and lies. There are plenty of examples. And when caught, cry "FUD".
Presentation as victims: That one is important. The Linux community is never at fault you see: If they are caught, they always cry, that they are not at fault, MS is evil .. and so it goes. Totalitarian states present themselves as victims always too.
Manipulation of history. Plenty of examples here too. The most glaring is the myth, that Microsoft started a war against Linux almost since the dawn of time. That is a blatant lie. The community hated MS (and other companies) long before they in turn noticed Linux. You only need to look at linux newsgroups from 1995 and earlier.
grr
· 1 year ago
What a bullshit piece of rhetoric. Let associate linux and totalitarian states like linux has that power or the secret police.
RMShasBO
· 1 year ago
Richard Stallman's concept of "Freedom" is copped pretty much directly from marxism-leninism. (Most freetards would never know this because they're engineering students who couldn't manage a upper level social science or philosophy class.)
The analogy might be godwinistic, but it is still basically correct.
grr
· 1 year ago
What else is copped directly from marxism-leninism let me guess global warming, labour unions, women's rights, Martin Luther King Day ,French cheese?
greenigs
· 1 year ago
There's definitely the freedom to copy and distribute software without paying for it. I honestly don't know how these developers pay their rent or feed themselves. Having met a few of them, though, I do know that soap, razor blades and haircuts are not regular purchases. Look, if they want to promote Linux, they should at least get a shave, haircut and shower.
Seriously, though, I can't understand someone who works so hard and doesn't get paid for it. One word comes to mind: chump.
nobody:nogroup
· 1 year ago
Argh. Before you write about the GPL you should read it...
"Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer. Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: "
I've been writing a document in OpenOffice for the past 12 hours. During a brake I put on some music in VLC (can't work with music). After 15 minutes I decided to close VLC, the window disappeared but the music continued. Not the first time, so I started htop to kill VLC. During the past few hours I noticed that my dual-core 2gig rammer had slowed down a bit. This is when I noticed ...
hmm, 6 identical processes with each 225Meg reserved. Surely, can't be - the splash-pipe at the end of the process probably refers to pipelined data, and htop is showing it as if the data is there 6 times. So I looked up splash-pipe:
well what do you know ... I'm running KUbuntu 8.04 with OO 2.4 and the bug has been around since Kubuntu 6.10
Or am I misinterpreting something here ?
.troll
· 1 year ago
Or am I misinterpreting something here ?
No you're not missing anything. I don't know why Canonical bother with Kubuntu, it's a fucking embarrassment. They treat it like their unwanted love child, worse than that even: they're Daily Mail readers and the unwanted Kubuntu love-child turned out to be a gay, paedo-Muslim, who's actually from Poland and wanting to claim asylum in the UK. Note: not saying anything against gay, paedo-Muslim, asylum seekers from Poland, it's the Daily Mail readers who're the cunts in this analogy.
You've got a few options in my opinion: 1. Send a personal snail mail to Mark Shuttleworth, spelt using bits of cut-up newspapers, telling him what a cock he is. 2. Just switch to normal Ubuntu, gwith gall gthat Gnome ggoodness. 3. Switch to another distro that supports KDE better. 4. Send Mark Shuttleworth 2,000 CDs with Kubuntu burned onto them. Put a label on each one reading: 'Fucking Useless'. Possibly include the bug id's that make it fucking useless to really drive your point home. 5. Put up with the bugs, but spend your time whinging on blogs, until some FOSStard says 'go back to Window$ then!!11One'. At which point you get -- more -- disheartened and just go back to the Microsoft fold.
Personally, I just switched to Gnome. It's LessShit(tm) than Kubuntu, although you can't fully appreciate K Pride Week on LH's blog without using KDE.
It's just another fucking FOSS debacle.
.troll
· 1 year ago
Just to clarify: Gnome is still shit. It's just less shit than KDE. As for OpenOffice, that software sucks more cock than a Vancouver hooker.
guzzie
· 1 year ago
Phew, that cleared things up. Unfortunately I'm stuck with kubuntu for a few weeks to come. Let's say it's a deadline, let's say that the "temporary decision" to work on Kubuntu turned out to be a bad idea. Let's say that migrating my code to my XP install has been evaluated and labeled as a bad idea because I'm lazy as hell.
Put up with the bugs, but spend your time whinging on blogs, until some FOSStard says 'go back to Window$ then!!11One'. At which point you get -- more -- disheartened and just go back to the Microsoft fold.
Will do !
I've been trying various Linsux distros on and off for a while now. My background is in asm (should give those that know what it is an idea of what kind of person is typing this), and my first encounter was minix. During the past decade and a half I've been working on just below a dozen distros in both academic and professional settings. The glazing has changed but the cake still tastes like old women's underwear. I'm still trying Linsux from time to time because it's fun to stop the verbal diarrhea of the occasional 20 year old Fosstard I encounter on my path to the grave.
Been in Vancouver once and you're right, the whales were better than the hookers.
.troll
· 1 year ago
It's always a little sad when someone goes back to Windows. The Free software dream fails for another person.
This seems to be the problem with Freetards, they are so scared of someone switching to Windows, or finding Linux unable to fulfill their needs, that they'll do anything to stop that happening. They'll even make the person an enemy or just an evil agent of Microsoft, in their own minds.
The idea goes that since Linux is inclusive, the user can be involved in the development process, then everyone's bugs and problems can and will be fixed. Unfortunately, life doesn't work that way, but that's what the Freetard propaganda says so everyone swallows it.
Personally I like the idea of software Freedom, but realise there are some practical limits to its usefulness. I use Ubuntu due to this and because Windows gets right on my chimes. That's what WorksForMe(tm), you've got to use what WorksForYou(tm).
The glazing has changed but the cake still tastes like old women's underwear. Hehehe, I'm interested to know: what has been consistently bad throughout that time? If the continued suckage is interesting, LH may write a post about it.
guzzie
· 1 year ago
I'm going to give a brief overview of Linux in my own microcosm, criticism is welcome but won't help much. Not a lot of people have a career-path that matches mine. And criticism isn't going to change anything on what I've seen and experienced during the past decade and a half.
1. The corporate game The problems fall under the umbrella "permissions". Let me clarify. Most people (including IT departments, but I have muchos sympathy for those devils) assume that in a corporate setup the permissions reflect a departmental hierarchy. I.e. you work at department X, then you have access to x ... your job-description is Y, then your permissions are that subset. Works perfect on paper. In the real life, the employee has to take over someone's task for a small amount of time - no matter whether you're an engineer or maintainer for a storage facility where they stock the cubic meters of toilet paper and tubing. Very simple reasons: someone's sick/on holiday/got fired and you need the results or you're stuck for a few days. This generally means repeatedly calling IT for administrative support. In a company of 500+ employees the IT guys get bugged a few times per minute for this. They get fed up. They install systems on the server to slipstream the requests.
In large companies there are 2 kinds of servers: the linux-type and the MS-type.
The first have extremely bad general purpose interfaces with GUI concepts from when the birds went on foot. Each application has its own approach and set of bugs. Your colleagues share tips on what not to press. One colleague can even navigate the white arrow on a black screen because after all those times he knows where to find the button if the desktop flips out. The dedicated software for access to a location or a service is written in-house and results in having a page in your notebook with lines of scripting code and locations of other scripts with cryptic names. You don't know what they do and you don't want to know. Sometimes they brake and you end up at IT, you and a few dozen other colleagues. You go home early and return late the next day or take a day off.
The second type of servers have proprietary business software. You need access to a computer with IE or you vmware it. You follow the links in IE and fill in your credentials. You have access. They too get broken, IT reports it to their contracted supplier and you go get an ice-cream with your colleagues. An hour or two later it's fixed and everyone complains about MS.
2. The academic field. There's a conference and oh-dear there's a workshop. You and a few others have problems installing that particular gnuarm. You and some others have trouble with curses. You and some others have problems with the USB for a piece of hardware kit they're demonstrating. Guess what you and some others are running. A small group can't make it to a meeting and decide to have it on adobe connect or via the university meeting url. Guess which guys have to test it an hour in advance and which don't.
In a few weeks I'm switching back to XP full time. In about 6 months I'll be installing some new linux flavor and give it another go. It's what I'm interested in, I get frustrated as much as you guys but I like to fool around with software and hardware. I have the same relationship with yogurt.
rockwell
· 1 year ago
//In a few weeks I'm switching back to XP full time.// In all seriousness, I'd just move straight to Vista SP1 if I were you. After a few hours of tweaking, I've found Vista to be faster, more intuitive and easier to use than XP. (note: I've been using a variety of OS's since the C-64).
No, I don't work for MS. :-)
.troll
· 1 year ago
Nice one, thanks for the elaboration! You're pretty much spot-on here I reckon.
luser
· 1 year ago
Just curious, what's wrong with KDE? I've been using it for a long time, apart from some bugs and the lots of settings and buttons issue I see nothing wrong with it.
Crunchinator
· 1 year ago
So you're essentially asking "apart from all the shit that doesn't work and the cluster-fuck user interface, what's wrong with KDE"?
luser
· 1 year ago
KDE 3.5 has many minor bugs and a few more important and long-standing ones, which is also the case for any other desktop (gnome, windows, osx). The problem that is considered the hallmark of KDE is the cluttered interface, which is arguably not very important after you've gotten used to it. My point is that for a long-time KDE user it has no important problems, at least that's how I feel.
Crunchinator
· 1 year ago
No shit, if it was a problem they wouldn't be "long-time KDE user[s]". You might as well have stated that it isn't a problem for people who don't think it's a problem.
luser
· 1 year ago
It is a problem for me, however I'm still using KDE, because the alternatives are worse. In KDE4.1 things are better.
.troll
· 1 year ago
Well the above post was meant to be a 'what's wrong with Kubuntu', but there are plenty of things that are shit about KDE in general.
It's ugly (yes, even KDE4 looks like shit, no matter what Freetards tell you), it's cluttered and unintuitive and most of the apps are half-finished.
John
· 1 year ago
How long does it take to set up Remote (PXE) installs of Linux, first I have to fuck around with DHCPD and after six hours it might be working, along with other shit like making a custom image, etc, etc, etc.
Windows 2008/2003/2000 Server can set this up in five minutes with a simple wizard, after you do another simple wizard for DHCP.
John
· 1 year ago
I forgot to point out that remote installs done this way on Windows require no prompts and is the easiest way to get Windows 2000/XP/Vista out across a network. Probably even still works with fucking NT 4.0. Completely unattended except for pressing F12 on boot. Who the hell challenges "linux hater" with this complete lack of knowledge of Windows. Idiot.
alexander
· 1 year ago
you also forgot to mention why anyone would want to run a windows server
nobody:nogroup
· 1 year ago
No, with NT 4.0 this was not possible. And for Vista you need too install a new RIS version. Psst. A little secret for you... Don't tell it anyone. You can boot a complete linux workstation over the network without installation. No need for hitting F12. "linux hater" doesn't know anything about linux oder unix concepts. Who is now the Idiot?
bic
· 1 year ago
And how does that help the average Joe desktop user with his home PC?
bic
· 1 year ago
(The "network boot a complete workstation" thing. For some reason the comment's not showing up where it belongs...)
nobody:nogroup
· 1 year ago
ROFL. Six hours for removing the comments and changing the IP Address to your needs?
ROFL. Six hours for removing the comments and changing the IP Address to your needs?
LMAO! I don't know what's more sad, the fact that you think that editing config files manually -- or using a command line is a reasonable substitute for a GUI for the average user. Is this your best argument to convince your grandmother that she should move to Linux based on ease-of-use? Fuck you.Try handing those tasks to the average person, and point them at a Linux box. Game over. FAIL.
bic
· 1 year ago
Obviously this guy's never heard of Norton Ghost... Make an install up once and clone it a hundred times over. If he really is an administrator for any company worth a damn, they buy fleets of identical (pr at least similar) computers, where drive cloning is an option. With a ragtag collection of random machines, it's a different matter.
deepdistrust
· 1 year ago
You make excellent points. I have seen the Lintards making the false claims many times. The truth is, a compromised user account is almost as bad as a compromised root account. Without root authority, the trojan may not hide itself completely, but with a suitable name, it can do a pretty good job.
All it takes for the user account to be compromised is a little vulnerability in a web-facing program. There's no shortage of vulnerabilities in the Linux land. Firefox, for example, has plenty of holes.
.troll
· 1 year ago
Up until now the Linux Hater's blog hasn't really been about Windows Vs. Linux IMO, unfortunately that Aaron thePonce went and started a pissing match.
Could we just stick to bashing Linux please? We've all seen these pissing matches before, they don't get us anywhere. The reason for this is very simple: people use whatever the fuck they want, and they'll defend that choice to the end.
The secret to the successful Linux hater is just that: hate Linux and only Linux. The flaws in the system stand on their own merits, no comparison with Windows required.
Someone
· 1 year ago
What exactly do you expect?
When people start bashing it invites flames and pissing matches.
Frankly this blog is if anything beneficial to Linux and FOSS in that it brings these issues to the forefront. I'm sure FOSS developers read this blog and take their notes under the scene. While I agree that most are blown out of proportion I wont deny that there is some factual content here.
.troll
· 1 year ago
Frankly this blog is if anything beneficial to Linux and FOSS No. It was beneficial, before the pissing match started.
NotMoreLinuxZealotry
· 1 year ago
Frankly this blog is if anything beneficial to Linux and FOSS in that it brings these issues to the forefront.
which they will then spout their fosstard mantras tantamount to burying their heads in the sand.
whitetigersx
· 1 year ago
Then a good thing will have happened, being that these problems get noticed and fixed. The question is whether or not those same developers will change their habits and start making the changes when the average user reports them.
jonessm
· 1 year ago
You freetards act like having your user account compromised is guaranteed to be easily detectable and obvious. BS!
This goes for Windows, Linux, and most UNIX systems... if your user account is compromised, you probably will not notice, and backups wont save you. On a Windows machine, something could have been started at login, taking advantage of any network wide privileges you may have. On UNIX-like systems, your profile might be modified to add a path to your home directory, which includes trojaned binaries. How long until something you execute with elevated privileges calls one of those in turn?
Claiming that the design of UNIX somehow saves you on modern Linux desktops & servers is utter BULLSHIT. The superior design you talk of might have been worth something back in the days of big multi-user systems, with full privileges being obtained solely through logging in as a separate user, root. Linux fanbois take heed, if your user account is capable of elevating privileges, you had better treat your home dir, and anything you can touch as if it was root's. This should account for 99.9% of user accounts on any modern system, including most servers. Might as well take a piss on UNIX fundamentals while your at it.
Stallmanix
· 1 year ago
Take control over the system its not important when someone can stole your data.
jonessm
· 1 year ago
You're thinking too small. On a corporate network, there is probably nothing of value inside a regular user's account on a *nix server (a samba server might be different story). Maybe your shell history file to help figure out the rest of the network. Compromise the server, and the attacker could hide his tracks and snoop on ALL admins that pass through. Don't know about you, but one infiltrated corporate network is worth a whole lot more than some dolt's PC. What are you going to do? Look for credit card info, try guessing the CVV? Hope to find some moron who's kept all of his social, account numbers, PINs in cleartext on his PC? Sell _one_ dude's info? OK, I think you can see how a corporate network would be worth more.
Lets all stop pretending the the wonderful design of UNIX's fortress- like security means squat on today's distributed systems with our current security practices.
Also... if someone has taken control of your system, they can perpetually steal your data and anyone else's on that machine at the very least, how in the hell does what you say make any sense?
guzzie
· 1 year ago
On corporate networks it doesn't really make a difference what system there is to keep data in and bad guys out. Corporate networks have one thing in common: they add small networks and systems to implement some department's requests - accompanied by small loopholes. In my current job I can access the *nix main Monte Carlo grid from the "welcome to X" touchscreen at the reception by connecting to an oscilloscope at the lab. Neither IT nor *nix nor MS is to blame for this, the culprit is the idiot from PR who wanted a shiny animated display for business suits to look at and decided that a trainee from HR should be responsible for what's displayed.
Re "nothing of value inside a regular user's account on a *nix server": The days when everybody had all his data in his desktop and accounts were centralised have long passed. Most corporations force you to take weekly backups and my data is sitting on 5 servers for the simple reason that although I can access all of the places they represent from my desktop, these servers can't inter-communicate directly for good reasons (example in my first paragraph) or won't because of incompatibility. There's also not really something like "a regular user's account on a server" ... there are a number of servers and what they store is literally everything. There's a small server for time-registration, a server for finance, about 4 for engineering, one for QA, ... and this is for one location. A 4000-employee with a dozen locations (a rather small corporation) can easily have 50 servers spread over the globe.
jonessm
· 1 year ago
>On corporate networks it doesn't really make a difference what system there is to keep data in and bad guys out. I agree, but I don't see where this is going. I'm not necessarily saying that *nix or MS security is wrong, just that it all tends to fall apart as you scale out.
>There's also not really something like "a regular user's account on a server" There are though, most admins log in with one. The original point I was trying to make was just that a compromised user account can be a very big deal. There seems to be some myth that a Linux virus can only rm -rf ~, and flash "nyah nyah nyah" on the screen. As you seem to imply, corporate networks are very complex and hard to keep track of, a malicious program anywhere in it could end up being a huge ordeal. Even a bugged account on a home system could be huge. Very few people pay close enough attention to the depths of their filesystems to notice anything was wrong. Why break in, destroy everything and leave? Why break in, steal everything and leave? Why leave or ever give away your presence at all? "I'll only lose my home dir" is bogus, that's what I'm saying.
>A 4000-employee with a dozen locations (a rather small corporation) can easily have 50 servers spread over the globe. I would imagine VERY many more than 50. Security is hard :\
Someone
· 1 year ago
So you monitor .bash_profile, /etc/groups and /etc/passwd and ensure no new users, environmental variables, and startup files were added.
There is also software, such as Rootkit Hunter that can scan and detect changes to these config files, permissions, and suspect kernel modules (potential rootkits).
More importantly is the unlikelihood that exploit vectors would remain open long enough for any real effect. I recieve security and bug fix updates nearly daily on my Linux system. This is in addition to security prevention mechanisms like ExecShield and SELinux MAC; I've configured SELinux to detect apps that behave irregular or try to perform illegal instructions, such as making a region of memory both executable and writable.
Never mind the extremely unlikely event of ever contracting a virus or trojan from a trusted software repository. Heh, what are the chances a malicious binary would run without the user knowing exactly what libs are required? Its possible the file wouldn't even execute due to Linux's unstable ABIs, especially if it didn't target a range of glibc versions.
LSB helps to solve the binary compatibility issue but what are the chances we'd see a crappy-ass written virus, trojan, or worm developed with LSB libraries?
Good luck convincing any sensible Linux user that if they compile the virus (errm.. useful app) and run it as root that magical orgasmic creations would appear on the screen. This could only occur with social engineering and a great way to make enemies out of someone.
jonessm
· 1 year ago
What are we talking about, personal f'ing desktops? And then you're going to make assumptions about all the other pathetic Linux desktop users in the world? Sure, _you_ can lock down any one machine like Fort Knox, can you do that to a whole network? How many users do you suppose do this, taking into consideration the level of difficulty and inconveniences it poses? /etc/password, WTF dude, who doesn't use centralized authentication today?
Look dude, this isn't exactly the direction I wanted this to go. I'm a UNIX admin on a smallish/medium sized network. We all know that with a lot of elbow grease you can build little secure silos out of ANY OS, it just doesn't scale, and isn't very practical.
>>This could only occur with social engineering and a great way to make enemies out of someone. LOL, I'm sure con artists, and criminals give a flying piss what society thinks of them.
Going back to my original point, "IF I'm infected, then I'll only lose my home directory" is BS. - Just as short sighted as "If someone breaks into my home I'll just lose some stuff" "I COULD build a high tech, super secure castle of a PC" is BS. - I COULD also put up an electric fence, razor wire, and moat full of alligators around my house. I could be a big asshole and say everyone else should to do it too. This is a very impractical way of improving national security. "Social engineering doesn't count" is TOTAL BS. - Think VERY hard how differently all your whole system could behave if social engineering wasn't considered a serious attack vector. Internet security is still largely built on trust, part of implementing good security is eliminating any blind trust. How about enforcing SSL certs or any method of preventing forged email delivery? Were those implemented just on a whim?
We can do better, just need to wake up and think real hard about TODAY's security. ... or go back to what, ~20 year old models that our current security is based on... big, trusted, centralized systems in large universities, corporations and government?
alexander
· 1 year ago
if your stuff was stolen and your house was burned down i bet you would be thinking damn why didnt they just take my stuff
jonessm
· 1 year ago
Where the FUCK did wishful thinking enter into this discussion? Did you read a God-damned thing anyone else wrote here? You can't HOPE that somebody who breaks in only does X, instead of X, Y, and Z. Explain what the hell you were thinking and how this applies to security. I'll be kind, even the loosest interpretation of the word "security" will do. Or, PISS OFF.
Phillip
· 1 year ago
So you monitor .bash_profile, /etc/groups and /etc/passwd and ensure no new users, environmental variables, and startup files were added.
You're missing the larger point, which is that EVERY OS is vulnerable to malware of one kind or another. Freetards routinely make FALSE CLAIMS that simply running Linux is enough to protect them from harm. It ISN'T enough; in fact, it's worse because they have a false sense of security over their presumed invulnerability.
Furthermore, freetards criticize Windows users for running malware detection & removal tools (eg. virus scanners, spyware scanners, enhanced firewalls, adblockers, etc). But you've basically just confirmed what we already know: If you want to secure your system from attack, you're going to need to run some kind of malware detection & removal tools. Doesn't matter if it's Windows or Linux or OS X or BSD. ALL are vulnerable.
More importantly is the unlikelihood that exploit vectors would remain open long enough for any real effect.
You're wrong. Practically nobody in the general public is qualified as a sys admin. People that don't know better are going to remain vulnerable, unless they're running automated tools that do the detection & removal for them.
Never mind the extremely unlikely event of ever contracting a virus or trojan from a trusted software repository.
Don't kid yourself. It's happened before. It will happen again.
LSB helps to solve the binary compatibility issue but what are the chances we'd see a crappy-ass written virus, trojan, or worm developed with LSB libraries?
With security, diversity is actually a strength. Standardization is a problem. LSB increases the odds that hacks will proliferate because malware writers will be able to count on common conventions.
Good luck convincing any sensible Linux user that if they compile the virus (errm.. useful app) and run it as root that magical orgasmic creations would appear on the screen. This could only occur with social engineering and a great way to make enemies out of someone.
How the fuck do you think that most malware attacks occur? Social engineering. Read this email. Click this link. People don't think. If Linux gains more users, those users will be untrained, they won't be able to distinguish between correct and incorrect usage policies, and they'll get fucked. There's nothing that you can do about it. Malware detection IMPROVES things, but it doesn't eliminate the problem, because the problem is unsolvable without removing significant flexibility from the machine -- which nobody wants.
Someone
· 1 year ago
You're missing the larger point, which is that EVERY OS is vulnerable to malware of one kind or another. Freetards routinely make FALSE CLAIMS that simply running Linux is enough to protect them from harm. It ISN'T enough; in fact, it's worse because they have a false sense of security over their presumed invulnerability.
Furthermore, freetards criticize Windows users for running malware detection & removal tools (eg. virus scanners, spyware scanners, enhanced firewalls, adblockers, etc). But you've basically just confirmed what we already know: If you want to secure your system from attack, you're going to need to run some kind of malware detection & removal tools. Doesn't matter if it's Windows or Linux or OS X or BSD. ALL are vulnerable.
I'm not disputing this and your right in that its foolish for Linux users to claim otherwise.
But the fact of the matter is there are a great deal of technical details that make Linux less susceptible in general. Most of them are associated with the unstable target that is Linux and the nature of FOSS software distribution.
Security through obscurity also comes into play as well.
These days, distros are adopting more pre-emptive security features like Buffer overflow checking GCC, ExecShield (address space randomization and NoExecute), SELinux, PAX, and AppArmor mandatory access systems.
So Linux has also become more secure from an architectural standpoint.
You're wrong. Practically nobody in the general public is qualified as a sys admin. People that don't know better are going to remain vulnerable, unless they're running automated tools that do the detection & removal for them.
The most effective preventative measure is being consistent with software updates. Software updates are what I was referring to in this paragraph.
Don't kid yourself. It's happened before. It will happen again.
Interesting but that was five years ago and not even a distribution repository but rather a generic FTP repository. The FSF reported that no project source code was compromised.
But I'll give you one point for finding this information.
With security, diversity is actually a strength. Standardization is a problem. LSB increases the odds that hacks will proliferate because malware writers will be able to count on common conventions.
Perhaps but advantages of standardization for Linux astronomically outweighs this little tidbit. There will always be distributions that aren't LSB complaint and its always possible to uninstall the LSB libraries.
In Fedora, LSB libraries are installed as a package called redhat-lsb and there are no dependencies for it. However, they are required if I wanted to, for example, install RealPlayer 11 Linux.
How the fuck do you think that most malware attacks occur? Social engineering. Read this email. Click this link. People don't think. If Linux gains more users, those users will be untrained, they won't be able to distinguish between correct and incorrect usage policies, and they'll get fucked. There's nothing that you can do about it. Malware detection IMPROVES things, but it doesn't eliminate the problem, because the problem is unsolvable without removing significant flexibility from the machine -- which nobody wants.
Perhaps but I think awareness of phishing and Internet fraud is spreading. Most people use computers and finding security-related articles on the internet isn't hard. My father is very computer illiterate yet is smart of enough to know not to open attachments from unknown sources or follow through with Nigerian bank scams.
Someone
· 1 year ago
Must of left of a closing bold tag.
Sigh...
Chlorus
· 1 year ago
You can edit until someone replies - and in this case, you did .
Someone
· 1 year ago
Huh?
That was a reply not an edit.
Chlorus
· 1 year ago
Yeah I know it was. You forgot to close your bold tag. Normally, you can edit your post on disqus to fix it. However, if someone replies, it locks out editing. You replied, preventing you from editing it.
Someone
· 1 year ago
Tested... doesn't seem to make a difference. I still only see the reply link. I must be missing something here.
Or maybe its because I haven't checked "Verify my post"?
Chlorus
· 1 year ago
That's it I guess. I always see it which is why I assumed you had edit access.
Someone
· 1 year ago
In response to LH's BS:
1) Windows has automated install... one Internets for you.
2) You don't have to know shit about the kernel to configure the firewall. Most users don't even need to bother with iptables when there are GUI front-ends like Firestarter and system-config-firewall. Fedora includes the latter and is enabled by default.Firestarter is in the repositories.
3) Wow... ever hear of backing up the home directory!?!? If it happened to be deleted then log in a root and create a new home directory with useradd -m or the equivalent Users & Groups GUI tool.
4) Have you ever heard of opening Fileroller and dragging files into an archive and its sub directories? Did you know Fileroller alone supports 11 archive formats? The only format it doesn't handle well is 7zip but there are alternative apps to handle those.
5) Bullshit dude. It only takes me 1 to 2 hours to install all the updates in a fresh Fedora installation and that is before I grab the "fastest mirror" yum plug-in. The volume of updates in Fedora are likely higher than Ubuntu as well.
You must fucking be on dial-up and we all know Linux and dial-up don't mix. Dial-up can and does work on Linux with a PPP client and either a hardware internal or external modem; only a few ISPs use a non-standard PPP or PPPoE clients which Linux might not support. But imagine trying to install the apps you need from a repository on dial-up.
5) Umm... rdesktop and xrdp. The nice frontends are tsclient, Gnome-RDP, and Krdc. VNC is alright...Vinagre is a vastly improved VNC client over the that shit vncviewer.
Umm... rdesktop and xrdp? The nice front-ends are tsclient, Gnome-RDP, and Krdc. VNC is an alright remote desktop protocol. Vinagre is a fantastic VNC client and light years ahead of that shit vncviewer that we love to hate.
Point is Linux usually has BASH, Perl, Python, etc. out of the box because apps require them as dependencies and BASH is just the standard shell. Therefore you have scripting capabilities right out-of-the box.
Interestingly enough a FOSS PowerShell solution, Pash, is under development as well. Its a new project and not feature complete yet--about 40% of the commands are implemented so far. Nevertheless, Pash may become a major contender on *nix once the project begins to take off.
Stallmanix
· 1 year ago
yeah and when linux doesn't usually has XXX you have to use a unsupported repo or change distro or install god knows how many lib headers so you can compile it
Someone
· 1 year ago
Fedora and RHEL will soon have RPM Fusion, which is Livna, Freshrpms, and Dribble united into one creditable/trustworthy 3rd party repository with one collaborating entity controlling it all.
Why compile from source when many projects provide pre-compiled DEB and RPM packages in addition to source packages?
Stallmanix
· 1 year ago
yeah eventually
Someone
· 1 year ago
Actually the repositories exist today. RPM Fusion will merely be a more efficient from a management perspective.
Stallmanix
· 1 year ago
repos are good when they don't break dependencies
Someone
· 1 year ago
That is the other issue which RPM Fusion will solve for Fedora and RHEL at least.
The problem is pretty minor now but will become virtually a non-issue then.
Stallmanix
· 1 year ago
you see eventually!!!!1111elevenoneoneone
Someone
· 1 year ago
Meh... there is much work migrating thousands of packages from multiple repositories. Real progress has been made so I'm not concerned.
I figure it will be ready shortly after the Fedora 10 release, which is scheduled a few months from now.
Stallmanix
· 1 year ago
Like year of the linux desktop. All you do is dream.
.troll
· 1 year ago
Asus sells more Linux EEE PC's despite being paid off by Microsoft to advertise Windows XP.
I suggest to wait 3 months and take note on the feedback of those consumers.
Captain Obvious
· 1 year ago
Yes, or you could go and boil your head.
guzzie
· 1 year ago
As soon as I get it out of you mother's ass
.troll
· 1 year ago
Why have you got your head up my mother's donkey?
Yeah, I know beastiality isn't a crime, but still.
guzzie
· 1 year ago
crap, I always confuse your mother with the donkey - I meant to say arse. My mistake.
.troll
· 1 year ago
That's alright, it happens often. She looked like a donkey before the operation.
Becoming a woman didn't really help with that.
NotMoreLinuxZealotry
· 1 year ago
You have two #5's in your response. Do you plan to patch that in the next release, or is does that not matter because it WorksForYou(tm)?
Someone
· 1 year ago
Yes, I saw that after it was too late.
No way to fucking edit comments on this blog.
Fail.
NotMoreLinuxZealotry
· 1 year ago
LOL dont be butthurt because your fail is immortalized for all to see.
Someone
· 1 year ago
Emphasizing my minor posting errors sure highlights your desperation.
NotMoreLinuxZealotry
· 1 year ago
you confuse sarcastic metaphor/hyperbole/whatever with desperation.
Kind of like how people confuse linux with a real operating system.
.troll
· 1 year ago
you confuse sarcastic metaphor/hyperbole/whatever with desperation.
Kind of like how people confuse linux with a real operating system.
This is just an epic fail on your part. You ought to be forced to use Kubuntu full-time for six months due to your shittiness.
.troll
· 1 year ago
NotMoreGrammaticalZealotry
guzzie
· 1 year ago
one can edit comments, you just don't know how.
whitetigersx
· 1 year ago
edit WorksForMe(tm)
edit: see...
Someone
· 1 year ago
God damnit... ignore the first part of flame #5:
"Umm... rdesktop and xrdp. The nice frontends are tsclient, Gnome-RDP, and Krdc. VNC is alright...Vinagre is a vastly improved VNC client over the that shit vncviewer."
.troll
· 1 year ago
3) Wow... ever hear of backing up the home directory!?!? If it happened to be deleted then log in a root and create a new home directory with useradd -m or the equivalent Users & Groups GUI tool.
Or more importantly: it's not that the system isn't destroyed, it's that no-one elses home directories are destroyed. There are quite a few environments where multiple home directories are stored on the same machine (although large corps running Windows will invariably have the same sort of permissions setup as Linux comes with by default).
Phillip
· 1 year ago
1) Windows has automated install... one Internets for you.
Deployment is significantly easier with Windows automated installs than Linux. I use it all the time.
2) You don't have to know shit about the kernel to configure the firewall. Most users don't even need to bother with iptables when there are GUI front-ends like Firestarter and system-config-firewall. Fedora includes the latter and is enabled by default.Firestarter is in the repositories.
You just don't get it. Linux firewall configuration is DELIBERATELY more difficult -- regardless of whether you need to dork with the kernel or not -- than configuring Windows firewall exceptions. There's a price to be paid for paranoia, and that's what you get with Linux.
3) Wow... ever hear of backing up the home directory!?!?
Apparently, you aren't aware that people simply don't back up their machines. Ever. They run until they stop running.
4) Have you ever heard of opening Fileroller and dragging files into an archive and its sub directories?
Fail. Fileroller is NOT integrated directly into Gnome or KDE like Windows zip folders, which just work right in the Windows Explorer. No need to dick around with a separate app.
5) Bullshit dude. It only takes me 1 to 2 hours to install all the updates in a fresh Fedora installation...You must fucking be on dial-up and we all know Linux and dial-up don't mix.
You're basically saying FUCK YOU to average folks in the heartland who can't afford broadband. Nice.
5) Umm... rdesktop and xrdp. The nice frontends are tsclient, Gnome-RDP, and Krdc. VNC is alright...Vinagre is a vastly improved VNC client over the that shit vncviewer.
Mostly cheap knock-offs of Microsoft TS client. Don't FOSS advocates invent anything of their own anymore?
Someone
· 1 year ago
>> Deployment is significantly easier with Windows automated installs than Linux. I use it all the time.
Fedora and RHEL have Kickstart, which is an automated install method for Anaconda. A kickstart configuration script can either be made manually or generated via Anaconda.
I'm sure other distros have their ways as well.
>> You just don't get it. Linux firewall configuration is DELIBERATELY more difficult -- regardless of whether you need to dork with the kernel or not -- than configuring Windows firewall exceptions. There's a price to be paid for paranoia, and that's what you get with Linux.
And I'm saying that is just a load of BS.
>> Apparently, you aren't aware that people simply don't back up their machines. Ever. They run until they stop running.
Well then they'll either be fine or learn the hard way? Its far more likely that their hard drive will fail than their system to be compromised when we factor in Linux's current marketshare state.
>> Fail. Fileroller is NOT integrated directly into Gnome or KDE like Windows zip folders, which just work right in the Windows Explorer. No need to dick around with a separate app.
So what? You can open Nautilus and right click on a file then create an archive with that file contained in it.
>> You're basically saying FUCK YOU to average folks in the heartland who can't afford broadband. Nice.
I live in a rural area and still have DSL.
But no... its not saying anything. You CAN have dial-up its just won't be a pleasant experience, unless you never update or need to download anything. You cannot buy Linux software in stores so the Internet is basically the only option.
>> Mostly cheap knock-offs of Microsoft TS client. Don't FOSS advocates invent anything of their own anymore?
Umm.. no they exist for the purpose of interoperability. Same damn thing with Samba. Linux has other solutions like SSH with X11 forwarding and FreeNX Client/Server.
Phillip
· 1 year ago
Fedora and RHEL have Kickstart, which is an automated install method for Anaconda. A kickstart configuration script can either be made manually or generated via Anaconda.
I've used both Kickstart and Windows Automated Installs. WAI goes way further than KickStart. It has extremely flexible group policy rules that allow for very granular OS policies.
And I'm saying that is just a load of BS.
It's not BS to say that Windows Firewall exceptions are easier to use than running Firestarter or system-config-firewall. Windows Firewall doesn't even require you to run a utility AT ALL. You simply run an app, Windows Firewall detects that it's trying to open a port, and it asks whether you want to give it permissions. You don't get that automated support with Firestarter or system-config-firewall. You have to do a lot more heavy-lifting. You won't admit it but, then again, you've lied and been called on it a number of times here, so I wouldn't be surprised now.
Well then they'll either be fine or learn the hard way?
THIS is the best you can muster for your defense of malware destroying the home directory?!? Nice. Fuck you very much.
So what? You can open Nautilus and right click on a file then create an archive with that file contained in it.
Again, my point was that it's MORE DIFFICULT than Windows. What part of that statement do you not understand? Just fucking admit it, and we can move on. You're wasting time trying to defend the indefensible.
I live in a rural area and still have DSL.
It isn't just an availability problem. It's a cost thing. Dial-up can be had for less than $10 in many communities. That may not seem like a lot to you, but it is a big deal to seniors, single mothers, the indigent, etc.
You CAN have dial-up its just won't be a pleasant experience
Compared to Windows, which works just fine right out of the box.
...unless you never update or need to download anything.
Which we know isn't the case with Linux.
You cannot buy Linux software in stores so the Internet is basically the only option.
Who would want to stock software that people aren't willing to buy?
Umm.. no they exist for the purpose of interoperability.
Nice side-step. Point is, FOSS (incl Linux) ISN'T about innovation. It's all about refabrication and duplication -- in an inferior manner to the software being copied.
Someone
· 1 year ago
I've used both Kickstart and Windows Automated Installs. WAI goes way further than KickStart. It has extremely flexible group policy rules that allow for very granular OS policies.
Group Policy is a Windows technology so of course it doesn't exist in Kickstart. Kickstart focuses directly with basic installation procedures.
FreeIPA is a project meant to bring similar auditing and central group and user management to Linux.
It's not BS to say that Windows Firewall exceptions are easier to use than running Firestarter or system-config-firewall. Windows Firewall doesn't even require you to run a utility AT ALL. You simply run an app, Windows Firewall detects that it's trying to open a port, and it asks whether you want to give it permissions. You don't get that automated support with Firestarter or system-config-firewall. You have to do a lot more heavy-lifting. You won't admit it but, then again, you've lied and been called on it a number of times here, so I wouldn't be surprised now.
Linux firewalls block incoming and outgoing packets based on their associated ports or IPs. Firestarter has live monitoring so you see exactly whats happening.
Being prompted applications that need their ports open (when not in the exception list) is annoying as fuck. Oh and guess what... there still is a firewall configuration utility much like system-config-firewall, firestarter, and gaurddog.
THIS is the best you can muster for your defense of malware destroying the home directory?!? Nice. Fuck you very much.
Well if the user is unwilling to spend 2 minutes to back up their home directory onto a flash drive or create a simple anacron task that'll do it automatically then what can I say?
Again, my point was that it's MORE DIFFICULT than Windows. What part of that statement do you not understand? Just fucking admit it, and we can move on. You're wasting time trying to defend the indefensible.
No its not dumbass. Fileroller is better because it handles multiple formats and very intuitive. You best install WinRAR if you want any other compression formats to be supported and WinRAR isn't even free unless you're a dipshit pirate.
It isn't just an availability problem. It's a cost thing. Dial-up can be had for less than $10 in many communities. That may not seem like a lot to you, but it is a big deal to seniors, single mothers, the indigent, etc.
Whatever... DSL can be purchased for at little as $20 a month, which is still or was cheaper than premium AOL dial-up.
Compared to Windows, which works just fine right out of the box.
Except when you have to configure the modem settings: ISP access numbers, area code, port settings, etc. Some ISP include their own PPP clients that have wizard to does the same thing.
Which we know isn't the case with Linux.
Your point is?
Who would want to stock software that people aren't willing to buy?
Irrelevant. The fact remains that the Internet is the only source in most cases, minus a few commercial boxed offerings; however those usually have to be purchased online because retail stores still wont carry them.
Nice side-step. Point is, FOSS (incl Linux) ISN'T about innovation. It's all about refabrication and duplication -- in an inferior manner to the software being copied.
Nobody has really innovated with software in a long time. One only needs to glance at OS X to understand why Vista isn't all that innovative.
Group Policy is a Windows technology so of course it doesn't exist in Kickstart. Kickstart focuses directly with basic installation procedures.
In other words, it isn't a complete solution. Like most FOSS projects.
FreeIPA is a project meant to bring similar auditing and central group and user management to Linux.
LMAO! Yeah, by all means, let me know when FOSS catches up to what Windows has TODAY.
Being prompted applications that need their ports open (when not in the exception list) is annoying as fuck.
Guess what: automated prompting is the only way that average users can figure out how to enable network-enabled apps. Getting them to drill down through a layer of menus to a control panel to some config utility is TOTAL FAIL.
Oh and guess what... there still is a firewall configuration utility much like system-config-firewall, firestarter, and gaurddog.
See above. TOTAL FAIL.
Well if the user is unwilling to spend 2 minutes to back up their home directory onto a flash drive or create a simple anacron task that'll do it automatically then what can I say?
Nothing. I'm not asking you to defend what can't be defended. All OSes are vulnerable. As long as we can agree on that basic premise, there's no need for further discussion.
No its not dumbass. Fileroller is better because it handles multiple formats and very intuitive.
It's not integrated into Gnome/KDE; therefore it IS more difficult for the average user. Trying to suggest otherwise is just nonsensical and wrong.
Whatever... DSL can be purchased for at little as $20 a month, which is still or was cheaper than premium AOL dial-up.
Not in all areas. Particularly where stringing fiber isn't possible.
Except when you have to configure the modem settings: ISP access numbers, area code, port settings, etc. Some ISP include their own PPP clients that have wizard to does the same thing.
Compared to Linux, which doesn't even advise you to pull down your pants before it fucks you.
Your point is?
Never updating is never an option when you're Internet-connected. Unless you enjoy failure.
Irrelevant. The fact remains that the Internet is the only source in most cases...
You missed the point. It doesn't HAVE to be the only source. It just IS because you have no other option. But PEOPLE -- you know, humans -- tend to be far more bricks-and-mortar than your typical Linux nerd. Hence, you'll never get a toehold in the average person's home.
Nobody has really innovated with software in a long time. One only needs to glance at OS X to understand why Vista isn't all that innovative.
Your statements are self-contradictory. Either OS X is innovating -- or it's not. Figure it out and try again.
Someone
· 1 year ago
In other words, it isn't a complete solution. Like most FOSS projects.
Well Kickstart appears to offer basic auto install configurations, such as enabling or disabling SELinux, setting it's restriction mode, creating user accounts, enabling specific services, etc.
The big features like Policy and Access Control are to come with the November 2.0 release.
Guess what: automated prompting is the only way that average users can figure out how to enable network-enabled apps. Getting them to drill down through a layer of menus to a control panel to some config utility is TOTAL FAIL.
Firestarter poses a wizard on the first launch to set everything up. Then an icon appears in the tray area for easy access later.
It really is a no brainer but of course you couldn't possibly admit to anything positive. Your just a bias fuck like most of the posters here; therefore convincing them otherwise is futile.
Nothing. I'm not asking you to defend what can't be defended. All OSes are vulnerable. As long as we can agree on that basic premise, there's no need for further discussion.
I don't think I ever disagreed about that. What we disagree about is backups. Lazyness is no excuse and the victim would realize this in the event of data loss--an event that would more likely be attributed by user error, power surge, or failed non-RAID HDD than malware.
We agree that malware is possible on all OSes and distros like Fedora would handle the issues as well as Vista with similar security features. However, Linux's marketshare position and ABI instability ensures that malware and viruses remain a minuscule issue for desktop users.
It's not integrated into Gnome/KDE; therefore it IS more difficult for the average user. Trying to suggest otherwise is just nonsensical and wrong.
Wrong. The zip file integration in Explorer lacks functionality. Therefore external programs like WinRAR and WinZIP are better suited to the task.
If Windows default ZIP support were so great then these 3rd party app wouldn't have gathered near as much popularity as they have. I've frequently seen these apps on the top downloads list at Download.com.
Not in all areas. Particularly where stringing fiber isn't possible.
If the phone lines are shitty and not equipped for DSL transmission then yes.
Cable is another option and is often faster as long as you aren't sharing the bandwidth with a gazillion neighbors.
Compared to Linux, which doesn't even advise you to pull down your pants before it fucks you.
Hardly more complicated. The article show two different ways of configuring PPP and the modem.
Never updating is never an option when you're Internet-connected. Unless you enjoy failure.
Its an option when hardware and software are working in their current state but not a particularity wise one from a security standpoint.
Your statements are self-contradictory. Either OS X is innovating -- or it's not. Figure it out and try again.
OS X was innovative when it was first released in 2001--seven years ago. But even OS X based itself on NeXT concepts and a FreeBSD base (minus the kernel).
Since then OS X has had many evolutionary enhancements but only a couple revolutionary ones. Time machine, Spotlight, and Coverflow are more evolutionary enhancements than revolutionary but are the more interesting new features in recent OS X releases.
I personally think all modern OSes and their GUIs trace back to Xerox.
Phillip
· 1 year ago
But no... FreeIPA has no integration with Kickstart from what I can tell.
I'm skeptical that you're evolving your narrow thinking, but it's a start to admit the obvious.
The big features like Policy and Access Control are to come with the November 2.0 release.
It's currently vaporware.
Firestarter poses a wizard on the first launch to set everything up. Then an icon appears in the tray area for easy access later.
But, of course, if Firestarter is installed BEFORE a given app, the user has to REALIZE that they need to enable that app's firewall throughput with Firestarter. See what I mean? The lack of automation is the problem. I'm not saying that it's IMPOSSIBLE. I'm just saying that it's more difficult -- and that's the fundamental problem with FOSS: It's just not designed with the same ease-of-use as Windows and OS X.
What we disagree about is backups. Lazyness is no excuse and the victim would realize this in the event of data loss--an event that would more likely be attributed by user error, power surge, or failed non-RAID HDD than malware.
I don't think we disagree about backups. What we disagree about is the REALITY that USERS DON'T BACK UP THEIR DATA. My Mom hasn't backed up her data in, like, 4 years. The problem is the immensity of the data. She has around 8GB of photos on her hard drive, and she only has a CD-R drive. It's just too much of a hassle for her. I hooked up an external USB drive, and backed up the data for her. But she just won't do it. Most users are the same way. They have an unrealistic faith in hardware technology. So, destruction of ~ is a really BAD thing.
Hardly more complicated. The article show two different ways of configuring PPP and the modem.
Except you don't have to do that in Windows. NetZero and other vendors provide automated installers.
Its an option when hardware and software are working in their current state but not a particularity wise one from a security standpoint.
Then why even draw the distinction? You'd have to be a dumbfuck to even consider not updating an option.
OS X was innovative when it was first released in 2001--seven years ago. But even OS X based itself on NeXT concepts and a FreeBSD base (minus the kernel).
Apple beat most other desktop OSes to the punch on hardware desktop composition, and its usability is constantly superior to anything offered by FOSS. You may not consider that innovative, but it is.
driAn
· 1 year ago
Thanks for defeating another fosstard, it was quite fun to read :P
Crunchinator
· 1 year ago
You do realize there are some very large updates for Ubuntu and a on a frequent basis as well. 30 Minutes download time isn't that realistic. Your DL speeds are the not the norm for everyone else. It's also not that uncommon for people to take a long time to setup Linux distros... but I guess all those "Help [something] doesn't work!" posts on numerous Linux forums just don't exist. Probably Microsoft employees, right?
Someone
· 1 year ago
Actually my connection is only 3 Mbps downstream.
According to Speedtest.net the national bandwidth average in the USA is 5.546 Mbps; the global average is 4.465 Mbps.
30 minutes to download updates is only slightly above average for me. Sometimes updates take an hour or longer. It just depends whats being updated.
Phillip
· 1 year ago
There are still a huge number of households that are running dial-up still. Broadband is still a luxury for many people, and pretending otherwise is just silly.
Also, stop trying to downplay the time required for updating Fedora/Ubuntu. It takes AT LEAST an hour to download and then additional time to install various packages. 30 minutes is complete BS.
Its a luxury if your income is just above the poverty level or you live on top of Mt. Everest. But shit son there is always satellite broadband for those who do live far away from civilization.
Granted, satellite internet is no bargain deal but neither is driving round trip to civilization to purchase groceries and other consumer items.
BTW, 30 minutes may be bullshit as well. If you keep up with updates then you'll generally recieve fewer of them at a time. Often enough I'll get single package updates that take all of 30 seconds to download and install.
Phillip
· 1 year ago
Its a luxury if your income is just above the poverty level
Not true. There are plenty of "middle income" people who don't have enough disposable income after they're done paying for food, gas, tuition, and other necessities. Broadband is a luxury, even in this country.
Someone
· 1 year ago
OK... well maybe if we factor in the sharp increase of fuel prices and its indirect effect of increasing the cost of everything else.
But if they can afford dial up then they could afford DSL by sacrificing say premium TV channels or commuting with a bicycle or scooter more frequently, rather than always by gas guzzling SUVs or trucks.
Phillip
· 1 year ago
OK... well maybe if we factor in the sharp increase of fuel prices and its indirect effect of increasing the cost of everything else.
Congratulations. You're getting it. It isn't the cost of broadband, per se. It's the cost of EVERYTHING ELSE plus broadband.
But if they can afford dial up then they could afford DSL by sacrificing say premium TV channels or commuting with a bicycle or scooter more frequently, rather than always by gas guzzling SUVs or trucks.
Some people don't have that luxury. For example, if you live in a state where there's scant public transportation (eg. Nebraska) and you have to commute a long distance between school, work, etc. Some people use gas guzzling SUVs and trucks in conjunction with their work (eg. construction, sales, etc). Telling them that they need to get rid of their vehicle or find another way to get to work is essentially like telling them that they need to change professions. Probably not an option. What I'm trying to get through to you is that your priorities are simply different than many other peoples'. It isn't your fault (or theirs). It's just the way it is.
Phillip
· 1 year ago
Incidentally, as an example, I have an uncle who lives in Brooklyn who has debilitating health problems. He receives a monthly stipend, and he isn't below poverty level. But, after paying the mortgage, insurance, prescriptions, food, and other things, there isn't much left over for luxuries like cable TV and broadband. Like many city dwellers, he often goes to public libraries and/or uses free Wi-Fi access with his modest laptop. Many people across the United States are struggling right now. Job losses have been minimal up until now, but the lay-offs are starting to ramp up as inflation heats up and domestic demand for products cools off. One of the first things to do is cable and Internet access. Anyway, consider yourself lucky that you can afford these things and/or use them in conjunction with a job. Many people can't.
Crunchinator
· 1 year ago
We'll settle this, you need only be in a location that lacks DSL or Cable offerings which, contrary to what some people believe there are still many areas where dial-up or satellite are your only options. I have cable but if I drive twenty miles from my house in any direction then dial-up is the only option. People who live in small towns or a little ways outside of town may not have broadband services.
whitetigersx
· 1 year ago
Phillip has you on the broadband issue.
And I have cable, a fresh vanilla install of openSUSE takes about 45 minutes on an AMD x64 dual processor with 2 gb RAM. Then I have to connect the ethernet cable because linux doesn't support Atheros cards on install. The recommended updates takes about another 45 minutes. Then I have to fight with madwifi to get my wireless working - I still can't get it to work on openSUSE 11.0, and I didn't have the time between homework to figure it out so I'm sticking with 10.3 right now. My windows installs (unless I'm using one of those annoying recovery disks) takes about 1 hr total.
Also, your link does state 1 billion users by 2008... but are you aware that the Earth's population is well on it's way to 6 billion. So no broadband is not a staple of the average global household.
Someone
· 1 year ago
You perform a minimal network Installation? If not then its mainly the I/O performance of your DVD drive and/or hard drive and speed of the CPU.
SUSE is a big, full-fledged distro. 45 minutes seems about right for a distro several GBs installed.
I have no comment about madwifi other than I would attempt to help if I had experience with that driver. My laptop system has a Broadcom based WNIC; it works just fine after firmware installation.
A Fedora LiveCD takes about 30 minutes to install about 2-3 GB of files. However my 5 year-old P4 system is far less capable.
1 billion broadband users will appear significant when there are just now over 1 billion computers connected to the Internet. There is really no way of knowing how many isolated systems exist but dial-up need not apply to them.
Note: it doesn't appear this measurement includes connected mobile devices. The number would be much larger otherwise.
Crunchinator
· 1 year ago
I meant to say "30 Minutes download time isn't that unrealistic"
kustr
· 1 year ago
SSH with X11 slow. FreeNX Client/Server a work in progress, last time i tried in arch linux i was not able to disconnect and resume local session, its not well integrated with X
lemonhead
· 1 year ago
well that was easily squashed (the challenge) Bravo!
Athrun
· 1 year ago
> Thank God! My rogue script only deleted my home directory! I'm so happy it spared my /usr/lib! I just have to > reinstall Ubuntu to get my home directory back, right?
So true.
rob
· 1 year ago
hey, new command for you guys: mkdir YES, IT CREATES A DIRECTORY!
LIS
· 1 year ago
So you've an empty directory. Good for you. All your settings, documents, and stuff that matters is as good as gone.
Congratulation, You've just won an Aaron.
luser
· 1 year ago
You should put this argument to rest. You can set a cron job to make backups of the user directory and change the ownership of the files. If you want more fine-grained control you can use selinux or apparmor. Try this with windows!
Mehrdad
· 1 year ago
Try a limited user account in Windows!
luser
· 1 year ago
Can you configure windows to prohibit removing/editing/accessing files in your home directory on a per program basis?
Brian
· 1 year ago
I'm having trouble understanding what the point of that would be. It sounds easy to circumvent and a managment nightmare. I can only imagine that the OS would track access based upon the binary file name or else something like using setuid binaries and then bit permissions. What is the point of protecting your files from yourself? Is the idea to provide file locking behavior so that one app doesn't clobber the state files of a running app?
Windows handles that by automatically putting mandatory locks on files that are opened for writing. This actually saved my butt recently when an admin using OpenSSH (running on SFU/Interix on Win2k3) did a rm -fr * on what he thought was a directory full of defunct database backups but was actually a directory full of live SQL Server databases. Since SQL Server had those files open for writing they were all locked and what the admin got back was a bunch of access denied errors and a cold sweat. If that had been a UNIX-type OS, he'd have blown away a dozen production databases used by our clients.
luser
· 1 year ago
The point is that compromised server and browser processes have virtually no access to the system, apart from the access you have explicitly granted.
This has nothing to do with this thread here, you're talking about something different. Even in this case you're wrong, as in linux the inodes would be still in use and easily accessible from /proc/[process id]/fd/[file descriptor], [process id] being the process ids of the database server processes. Windows is badly designed in this case, as it effectively prohibits live updates to the system core for zero gain.
Brian
· 1 year ago
If the point is having processes that have lower rights than the user that launched them, then Windows Vista does that using Mantitory Integrity Control (aka Integrity Levels) and User Interface Privilege Isolation (UIUP, which is admittedly more of a speed-bump than a security boundary).
For services, there are special built-in limited access accounts like "Network Service" that has limited access to the local machine and "Local Service" which has no network access.
Also, by default the Firewall is running and no services can listen on the network.
luser
· 1 year ago
Apparmor is something like IE's protected mode, but it can be configured for other applications as well.
I've seen windows security features in xp, they cause way too much trouble for what they're worth. I'm still unable to open Office XP files from a network location and have no way to find out what is causing this. The weird thing is that I can copy the file locally, then open it.
Anyway, I'll check vista and see if anything has changed. Thanks for the information.
ruds
· 1 year ago
you can use low il like ie protected mode and even denied read acces for low il process
I used XP as a non-admin for years (and I write code). It takes a little fiddling but can be done and lived with. Sometimes you really need to have your own account be admin to get stuff to work. The MakeMeAdmin script from Aaron Margolis is great for this. http://blogs.msdn.com/aaron_margosis/archive/20...
Vista's UAC prompt is much more convenient. Because I'm paranoid, I take my own account out of the Administrators group. When you do that the UAC dialog requires you to provide credentials to elevate a process and you aren't just relying on integrity levels. Integrity Levels are not a bunker designed to survive a nuclear attack.
rockwell
· 1 year ago
Um, the included backup software in Vista allows you to easily make backups of any file/folder on your system.
LIS
· 1 year ago
I fully admit to knowing jack shit about corporate system administration (although I'm familiar with the terms, rather than the applications, of UAC and Active Directory).
Backups are universally important, I'm in full and complete agreement with you.
However, as an end user, the overhead of recovering my personal information is far greater and far more important than the overhead of reinstalling the binaries, say, using Ghost or vLite.
I don't care about the software, only about what I do with it.
Now, do you win an Internet for recognizing backups as a universally important, or an Aaron for failing to research UAC?
whitetigersx
· 1 year ago
Add of course, if you've been vigilant in your back-ups then you may have backed yourself into the same situation, the malware is in your backup.
Simon
· 1 year ago
Ever heard of ntbackup.exe?
ntbackup hater
· 1 year ago
Have you ever heard of the most nastiest backup program ever, which ironically goes by the same bastard name as the one you mentioned, ntbackup.exe?
I've lost backups because of that piece of shit program wouldn't restore the files to a different machine and with it's suck ass format. XCopy or zip would be a much better choice; or working through the shadow copy service.
NotMoreLinuxZealotry
· 1 year ago
backups are for pussies anyway...
luser
· 1 year ago
For some reason everybody chose to ignore my mentioning selinux and apparmor, which solve this problem once and for all, and instead focused on the backup process.
Chlorus
· 1 year ago
I'll bite. SELinux is a massive PITA to setup, while AppArmor is currently unmaintained (Novell laid off their staff) and as far as I know no individual project has formed to take up the reigns.
luser
· 1 year ago
SELinux is fit for the purpose, provided that you need it so much in order to spend the time to configure it. Apparmor is currently maintained at Novell, as opensuse 11 and earlier include it and the mailing-list is active. Were did you read that apparmor is no longer maintained?
"Novell wants the community to pick up maintenance and development of AppArmor. But tossing it in the wind and hoping is not good enough assurance for me, so now it's my business to go find sponsors who are willing to pay for AppArmor development," Cowan said.
luser
· 1 year ago
That's an interesting way to spin this. The article says that apparmor is maintained by several developers at Novell and the community, and that paid development by the original developers is also an option.
wingrunr21
· 1 year ago
I've got another one for you:
rm -rf *
blahblah
· 1 year ago
As any fule kno, this is not a failure of the design of *nix security, but does demonstrate why backups are important (and not a little ignorance on the part of some of the gurning lackwits on this site). If permissions are such that we are unable to destroy our data we'd be unable to create it. But at least with Umbongo and the others you won't have to reinstall the whole damned OS, just untar your homedir and log back in.
Jean Azzopardi
· 1 year ago
The future of Linux isn't in released software like Ubuntu, where a new release comes out every 6 months. It's in rolling releases, like Arch Linux. Firefox 3 comes out, woot, installed. KDE 4.1? Same thing. Install the OS once and that's it. Kernels, drivers, it doesn't matter, you don't have to reinstall. Nor do you have 1 mega-huge upgrade every 6 months that tends to break things.
Only pity is that Arch is harder to use than Ubuntu, no gui tools and all text files. But with some work, this can change. I no longer use Ubuntu.
Anyway, nice work LH. Although I like Linux a lot, it isn't wise to be blinded by zealotry.
Michael
· 1 year ago
I would NEVER run Arch on a production box, there's a reason that distros Redhat ES and Debian stable exist, for stability. I really don't give a rats ass if I have the latest and greatest version of everything installed, if the system is secure and does what I need there's no reason to mess with it.
centipede901
· 1 year ago
I would ONLY run Arch on a production box and I ALWAYS need the latest, preferably a freshly compiled package right out of svn - code modified by myself. I envy those who can do a stock XP or Linux install and have all their needs covered. Must be people who need nothing but office matters. A top notch Mac/Vista/Ubuntu with latest Maya/3DStudio/Shaker/whatever is like shooting oneself in the balls already. What the hell is wrong with people on both sides? Linux is for tinkering, not luxury.
LIS
· 1 year ago
LHB, here's a reverse challenge: Find something that Linux does better than its competition.
Notable examples: 1. Super Computers. - How does Windows HPC compares?
2. Low-end web server. - Why is the market share of Linux in decline?
3. THIS SPACE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
pgtips
· 1 year ago
And this relates to the desktop.... how?
LIS
· 1 year ago
It doesn't. Linux is a non issue on the desktop.
anon
· 1 year ago
Look. They are VERY different markets. To take your first example:
1-They do not need graphical access. 2-The software is upgraded veery rarely. 3-They are very very specialised systems so they often need to make some changes here or there.
In other words, it's not Microsoft market. Sure, maybe in the future they'll try to go there (they always do) but that's not the point. Nobody is arguing that Microsoft is good for those systems, what LH is saying is that Linux is crap on the desktop, or for not computer savvy people.
.net jerkface
· 1 year ago
I'll argue that Windows Server 2008 web edition is good for low end serving. At $400 I think it is worth every penny.
If $400 isn't low end enough then I would question why you need a dedicated server in the first place.
So only 16% of people at a ***Linux convention*** are using Linux on their laptops?
What a fucking joke.
Kokoro
· 1 year ago
How much is 16% of 20 people?
bodhibuilder
· 1 year ago
Guess there is some child abuse involved.
bic
· 1 year ago
About 3.2 people.
Either someone's dual-booting, or they're a quadruple amputee.
Freeman
· 1 year ago
That's nothing new. You can find hordes of people swearing by Linux, claiming how "superior" is, but when the time to choose comes, you know what they're using... and it's not Linux.
Linux is all about noise.
Patrik
· 1 year ago
As always, mostly great insights from a man of both worlds.
However, some of the points looks at the issues from a Linux-newbie points and experienced Windows sysadmin point, which is quite unfair.
A Linux-newbie should use the package-manager provided with Ubuntu to install stable applications that will update themselves. A Windows-newbie will browse the web for applications and break the system when installing two pairs of antivirus or firewall-software, bloating the system with crappy applications, or plainly downloading malware.
For system updates, I'd hightlight some other issues Windows has. Sure, Ubuntu releases are released more often than service packs are for Windows, but they also add a great deal more functionality than service packs do. No, you don't have to upgrade your whole Windows-system to get Firefox 3, but you'll have have 20 update-checkers running and manually go check for new software all the time. With regards to the ease of which Ubuntu handles package-updates and distro-updates I don't even see this as a problem. Also, to be fair, you have to include the time of reboots and time and money of upgrading to Vista into the calculation. And you're implying that Windows-updates never cause any problems? How many computers have you tried installing SP3 on? WGA isn't that helpful either - there aren't many users that I've helped that realized they'd have to visit Windows/Microsoft Update once in a while to install a new WGA to get the newest updates. Additionally, as people have pointed out, Windows have a tendency of degrading it own's performance over time. I generally have a "software life cycle" of 6-12 months of any Windows XP-installation at any given client.
The topic of remote assistance is a complex one though. I don't like helping people configure their mail over RDP/VNC either, especially when they're on slow links. And I feel stressed that I'm occupying their desktop. But an SSH-server with Powershell on Windows probably wouldn't let me configure Outlook Express for a user, since it's all in the GUI. Nearly all GUI applications on Linux are frontends though, so I can edit the configuration-files by hand over SSH and kindly ask the user to try the application again (and during the troubleshooting they've been using their desktop as normal).
Aunt Tille
· 1 year ago
I agree that the update checkers running in the background as separate processes is a huge issue in the Windows environment. (I suspect many of these checkers are thinly veiled pieces of adware/spyware using updates as an excuse). But quality software like Firefox have built in checkers and updaters.
Besides, the huge advantage in Windows is that it's easy to upgrade from Firefox 2.0 to Firefox 3.0. Just download and install. On Ubuntu, for example, you're pretty much locked into receiving security updates to the chosen major.minor release version until the next version of Ubuntu comes out. Sure you can upgrade from 2.0 to 3.0 manually but that isn't for the faint of heart... and good luck getting all those plugins working again.
Brian
· 1 year ago
Kind of a sad state of affairs. If MSFT provided an update API for everyone to use, then nobody would use it on principal. If they provided a way for 3rd party applications to be updated through Microsoft Update, they'd get sued.
The really unfortunate thing is that a whole slew of the updaters don't use cryptographic signatures of their updates and are vulnerable to DNS cache poisoning attacks.
Guess what, package managers have the same sort of security problems. And on top of that they are use a ton of mirrors on who-knows-whose severs. Fortunately, since nobody really uses desktop Linux there's very little point in attacking these systems.
Used it myself. Very secure. Very easy to use and very flexible.
julian67
· 1 year ago
Distrowatch's stats don't reflect anything except clicks on their page, they mean nothing in terms of installed numbers.
Linux on the dekstop is Linux on the desktop, doesn't matter if you paid for it or not or if you use it at home, at the office, on the train, it's still ....can you guess??....Linux on the desktop!!!!! Hey guess what? People use XP at home and in the office too. And other people use Linux in the office and at home too! And some people use XP at work and Linux at home! And some people use Linux at the office and XP at home! OMG! It's all so confusing! They didn't tell me this at Distrowatch or on my Ubuntu CD! Ranpha you're almost as stupid as LHB Supporter but you win one whole entire interweb to take home with you tonight because you can actually spell, or at least have figured out that spellcheckers exist.
rockwell
· 1 year ago
@julian67,
You make salient points about "Linux on the desktop" ... enterprise or home, in my mind, a desktop computer running "desktop" applications counts as an install. And, I'd wager, Ubuntu still hasn't caught up to RHEL in that regard.
Nonetheless, I think the point of this particular post is: the "challenge" put forth didn't really make much sense, since Aaron Toponce doesn't seem to know, technically, the best way to install Windows XP ... and, to be more fair, he should have done the comparison with Vista SP1, Microsoft's *latest* OS ... as a user of Linux/Mac OS/Windows (for about 15 years, oy) ... after some initial tweaking (necessary on any desktop OS install, IMHO) .. Vista has been quite solid for me, and doesn't cause many problems at all. Now, the same can be said for my Fedora 9 install, but that did take longer to get setup.
julian67
· 1 year ago
No, Ubuntu is not the biggest contender for pre-installs, it's merely the most prominently marketed to home users. As long as Lenovo (IBM and Lenovo Thinkpad) offer Suse then inevitably Suse is the main contender because the Thinkpad is the definitive business laptop which is bought and deployed in huge numbers. Possibly the next contender is Xandros which is pre-installed on the Asus Eee PC and has sold in millions. Maybe over the next few years Ubuntu will take prime position but it isn't there yet.
Almost all the stuff I've heard about the Asus Eee PC and the Dells with Ubuntu pre-installed has been very positive. Installation, whether it's of XP, Vista, Ubuntu, Suse, OS X, is a huge obstacle for most users, who either don't want to do it, can't do it, or both. Dell's pre-install of Ubuntu has been praised a lot in every review of it I've seen.
Ubuntu ubuntu ubuntu.....it seems the biggest suckers for their fanboy's claims and Canonical's PR are all the anti-free software zealots. Funny, but come to think of it I'm starting to actually like Ubuntu.....
Paul
· 1 year ago
"Possibly the next contender is Xandros which is pre-installed on the Asus Eee PC and has sold in millions."
And this is why lusers are lusers. Millions? What frickin' planet are you on? From IHT:
"In Japan, about 1.1 million subnotebooks were sold in the 12 months that ended in March, a 3 percent increase from the year before, while sales of full-sized notebooks fell 9 percent during the same period to 4.7 million units. Worldwide, International Data expects 6.6 million ultra-portables to be sold this year."
Given the huge popularity of the Vaio-U in Japan, it's EXTREMELY doubtful there are millions of Linux used in the subnotebook market, especially when the leaders are Palm, Handspring, Sony and Compaq.
julian67
· 1 year ago
I looked at reports of Asus's global sales reports for the Asus Eee PC, which show 1.7 million sales in the first 6 months of 2008, apparently about 300,000 fewer than anticipated.
Perhaps to get information on global sales of an Asus product I should have concentrated on a Sony product's sales in Japan? An interesting idea but regrettably one that marks you out as an idiot.
julian67
· 1 year ago
p.s. up to May 2008 confirmed orders of the OLPC were at about 650,000. This is before an announcement that XP would become available on it, so these orders are for the version with the Linux kernel and Sugar interface.
Possibly many people who buy an Eee PC don't know or care what the underlying OS is, why should they? They're not shopping for an OS whether it's NT or Linux based, or anything else. They're shopping for a device.
Paul
· 1 year ago
"up to May 2008 confirmed orders of the OLPC were at about 650,000." That kills your argument. For starters, it's not a commercial subnotebook: it's a limited piece of crap foisted upon the poor, starving children of the world. Bringing it up automatically eliminates you from consideration as a serious person.
By the way, one minute of googling yielded the following: TOTAL unit sales for Asus models was 1.7 million. You do realize they -- as in Acer, the parent company -- make more than the Eee PC, right? And Asus officials say directly they think Linux is NOT the key to Eee PC sales, right?
In that article, Asus officials are QUOTED as saying they sold 600,000 Eee PCs last year.
__600,000__
What a frickin' luser you are.
And of those users, MOST ARE DUMPING LINUX:
"Don’t bet on it, says Hugo Ortega, principal of Tegatech, a distributor that handles the Eee alongside competing devices such as HP’s 2133 Mini-Note PC and ultra-mobile PCs (UMPCs) that run Windows XP and Vista and range well past the $3000 mark.
“The HP 2133s are outselling the Eee PC 20 to 1,” Ortega says, “and Linux only accounts for probably 20% of Eee PC sales and less than 5% of overall UMPC sales. The fact that there’s a $500 notebook out there is a big plus, but we find most [buyers] are more than happy to use a license in their office to upgrade them to [Windows] XP.” "
Wow. What a source of misinformation you are, julian.
julian67
· 1 year ago
OK I had another look.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Newsentry.153+M507... "Asus raised the sales expectations of the Eee PC from 3.8 million to 5 million sold devices at the beginning of 2008. Now, Chen expects this numbers to rise again, but he did not tell how much."
"According to DigiTimes, 1.7 million devices were shipped in the first half of 2008, which was 300 000 less than expected'
The figure of 600,000 units sold in 2007 is interesting because the Eee PC only launched In October in Taiwan and globally in November. 600,000 sales in 10 weeks for a new product is not so bad ;-)
As for Asus' total global PC sales, the point you missed is that they have more than doubled since the Eee PC arrived. According to Gartner http://eeepc.net/pc-sales-continue-to-grow-than... they shipped 1.3 million units (total PC sales) in quarter 2 of 2008 alone. A 159% rise on Q2 2007.
If they sell 5 million Eee Pcs in 2008 and according to your non-definitive speculating source only 20% of those have Linux I calculate, by the awesome power of advanced maths, that will be 1 Linux million Eee PCs expected to be sold in addition to the 600,000 Linux based models sold in 2007.
But thank you for accusing me of being misleading while getting it badly wrong yourself. ;-)
Re: what OS people choose when they buy an Eee PC and what they do with it afterwards:
In many markets the Eee PC has been sold with different SSD (flash drive) sizes and RAM for XP and Linux and at different prices. On some models buying Linux means saving money and getting a 20 GB drive instead of 12 GB. On other models the Linux version costs more but has less RAM and a smaller SDD.
Like any other PC it's hard to tell what people do with it after sale. If I wanted an Eee PC 1000 I'd buy the XP model, if I wanted one of the smaller models I'd buy the Linux version. Both decisions based on cost and hardware, not the OS. I'd probably install Debian on either, so neither would have the OS supplied by the manufacturer.
As for the OLPC if it's not commercial then is it free? Or do organisations have to pay for it? If a government purchases 200,000 HP desktops and XP licenses for their offices and schools would you call that non-commercial too?
Paul
· 1 year ago
You fail the truth test by quoting Wikipedia, dude! As for your "references" -- none of them had a direct quote FROM A SINGLE PERSON. In other words, they're worthless blog posts -- it's like someone quoting the numbers you pulled from your butt as evidence of something. You can't ignore the well-researched article with actual resellers saying actual things -- but I admire you for staying in your own little reality-denial sphere, refusing to believe reality and instead patching together an alternative universe of blog posts and incorrect assertions. Bravo!
Also, you fail the truth test by not providing the actual quote from one of the articles:
"Among the 5 brands, Asus enjoyed the largest growth with a total sale of 1.3 million PC units shipped. "
Um, dude, Asus sells more than just the Eee PC! Your own quoted article contracts your statements. What is it -- 5 million? 1.3 million?
Oh, wait, it's 600,000 for the last 12 months for the EEE PC -- not for 2007. Selective reading on your part: you didn't notice the article you dis was dated TWO WEEKS AGO:
And, finally, you may want to take a remedial reading course: in the real world, SHIPPING a produce isn't the same as SELLING it. The way the market has tuned into a consignment world, the number shipped is worthless.
And getting back to your poor reading comprehension skills: yeah, government is PRETTY MUCH THE DEFINITION OF NONCOMMERCIAL. Yeeks.
"But thank you for accusing me of being misleading while getting it badly wrong yourself. ;-)"
Sorry: I nailed it. You are pathetically wrong, but what makes it so pathetic is that you're a luser who can't see their own delusions.
julian67
· 1 year ago
I'm sorry your reading and comprehension skills are so limited. The link that *you* posted states
"ASUS sold more than 600,000 Eee PCs last year, and is targeting sales of 5 million this year"
The Eee PC was released in Taiwan at the end of October 2007 and globally in November. And *you* are accusing *me* of selective reading and being misleading!
You're a moron.
Yes Asus sold 1.3 million Pcs of all descriptions last year. And since the Eee PC was released their sales have increased massively, with Q2 results 2008 vs Q2 results 2007 showing the 159% increase. They project sales of the Eee PC alone to reach 5 million units in 2008.
If you have trouble understanding the difference between months, quarters and years that's your problem. If you can't understand that last year's sales don't equate to this years sales and they have are massively different again that's your problem. The Eee PC is massively cheaper than their other PC products and it's selling in massively bigger numbers accordingly.
You're a moron.
As for commercial or non-commercial: again you're a fucking moron. Have you had a lobotomy or have you always been this stupid? If HP or Dell or Asus or anybody make a sale of hardware and accompanying software license to a government do you think they, as suppliers, regard this as non-commercial? If Dell sell one PC via direct sales to a member of the public is this some sort of domestic activity rather than commercial? Do you really think commercial means only business to business?
You're an incredibly stupid person but please keep going. My other hobbies include stealing candy from babies and shooting fish in a barrel so this makes for a nice easy warm up.
Paul
· 1 year ago
Heh. Typical Linux luser; just making s**t up as they go along. Fine; I know it's more comfortable to deny reality, and I know all too well how Lusers can deny reality, even when it's shoved into their face. (Here's a tip: there's a difference between Eee PC running Linux sales and EEE PC running XP sales. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.) But I cannot let this go unchallenged, because it shows what a different reality you inhabit:
"If HP or Dell or Asus or anybody make a sale of hardware and accompanying software license to a government do you think they, as suppliers, regard this as non-commercial?"
Yes, they do. Governmental sales are a totally different sales channel with totally different rules, like bidding and RFPs. A GOVERNMENTAL SALE IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF A NONCOMMERCIAL SALE.
You'd better step away from your mom and dad's water heater next to your basement abode; the fumes from the gas leak is making you dumber by the minute.
julian67
· 1 year ago
Commercial = occupied with or engaged in commerce or work intended for commerce
Commerce = the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place
synonym = Business
Business, commerce, trade, industry, traffic mean activity concerned with the supplying and distribution of commodities.
(merriam-webster)
Selling stuff is commercial, whether the end user is a company or a government.
You're a fucking moron.
Yes there's a difference between running XP and running Linux on the Eee PC. According to your linked speculation about 80% of Eee PCs run XP and 20% run Linux. Projected total sales of Eee PC for 2008 are expected, by Asus, to be 5 million. 20% of 5 million makes 1 million. Is this too technical for you? It's all there in previous posts. Are you fucking illiterate, innumerate or both?
You're a fucking moron.
Crunchinator
· 1 year ago
Projecting 5 million units sold is not the same as actually selling 5 million units.
julian67
· 1 year ago
Congratulations! You made a reasonable, if slightly obvious, point while displaying no signs of being educationally sub-normal, making no spelling mistakes, no fundamental errors of simple maths and show no evidence of psychosis or delusional thinking. You are an LHB Genius!
p.s. are you a spam bot?
Crunchinator
· 1 year ago
Yes.
However, don't you feel a little hypocritical when you essentially call people idiots even though you are using projected numbers in an attempt to debunk claims using real numbers?
julian67
· 1 year ago
I used the real numbers as well, the 600,000 linux Eee PCs sold from release in October thru to end of 2007. Also quoted the actual (not projected) figures for the 1st 6 months 2008 and the Q2 2007 vs Q2 2008 Asus overall figures. All these were alleged to be something other than what they are. I've been told that the figures for the 10 weeks the Eee PC was available last year equated to 12 months sales, that because Asus sold X number total PCs in 2007 they can't possibly be sellling more in 2008 (despite quoting their 159% PC sales increase) etc etc etc.
I didn't present the projected numbers as anything other than projections. If we go back to the original point it was me stating that the Eee PC with Linux has sold millions and getting a load of verbal abuse for having the made the mistake of saying something which is true, and taking more crap by demonstrating it's true, with real actual numbers, to a couple of idiots who apparently can't count to 12, let a lone a million. I don't think that's hypocrisy in any way. Try consulting a dictionary, you seem to have an IQ over 70 which makes you the exception round here, so use it.
Paul
· 1 year ago
"Commercial = occupied with or engaged in commerce or work intended for commerce"
Which is not government. I don't know why you're being so dogmatic about insisting government sales are the same as commercial sales. Anyone who has spent a minute in the sales chain knows there is a difference. In the real world, a commercial sale is a reference to the BUYER, not the seller. Educational and government channels are totally different than commercial channels. What, you think a school district or local government unit walks into a Best Buy with credit card in hand? IT DON'T WORK THAT WAY.
That's OK. It looks like everyone here has you figured out for the luser you are, so slink on back to slashdot for today's circle jerk. Maybe Taco will give you a reacharound since you've been a good luser.
julian67
· 1 year ago
Mr Paul Fuckwit: a transaction has at least *two* parties. The *vendor* is engaged in commercial activity. It doesn't matter if the purchaser is a domestic user, another business, a non-profit, or a government. The *vendor* is selling goods and services for the purpose of making a profit. This is commerce.
You are an unbelievable fucking idiot.
Paul
· 1 year ago
"The *vendor* is engaged in commercial activity. It doesn't matter if the purchaser is a domestic user, another business, a non-profit, or a government."
And this is why you are a luser. It DOES matter to the vendor. It matters a lot. There is a reason why firms specialize in different channels, why IBM goes after the enterprise and why Best Buy's Geek Squad goes after home and small-business users, why some firms work with nonprofits and some work with governments and deal with the often arcane purchasing criteria. On a practical level, the purchasing criteria for a government or school are fixed and it's up to you to meet their standards; I note you didn't answer my question about whether you really think a city manager or a school district walks into a Best Buy, credit card in hand, to make large purchases. (Of course they don't; admit it.) If you cannot, truly not understand why not every customer is the same, it explains why Linux and its advocates are doomed for failure: different customers have different needs and have different methods of procurement. (It also explains why lusers insist Linux is a great desktop OS because it works so well in the supercomputer field. THEY JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE.) But keep on insisting that every customer is exactly the same; repeating it over and over won't make it so.
You can insult me all you want; it's really amateur hour with you involved. I suspect you know deep down you screwed up and can't acknowledge it. But that's OK; it's that stubbornness and total lack of common sense that keeps Linux afloat.
julian67
· 1 year ago
Dear fuckwit, yes the customers are different and make their purchases in different ways (retail outlet, wholesale outlet, direct sales, tender, cash, account, whatever) but for the vendor it's all commerce, i.e. activity of selling goods/services with the end of making a profit.
You are a fucking moron.
Wait for the popping noise before you post again.
Paul
· 1 year ago
that wasn't so hard, was it, bitch?
julian67
· 1 year ago
wait for the popping noise.
Phillip
· 1 year ago
What a douche. Dude, comments like yours make it obvious to anyone reading this blog that you have utter myopia about the way that the vendor ecosystem works in the real world. Which isn't surprising. Lusers tend to look at their continued failure on the desktop with a kind of bewilderment, blaming both vendors and Microsoft but not really understanding the ecosystem that links them to customers. My advice would be ... do exactly what you're already doing, and think exactly what you're thinking. Don't change a bit. Don't learn anything new. Don't try anything different. Because, God knows, your strategy for winning desktop customers has been so "successful" based on your current retarded thinking. I enjoy earning the money that you dolts could be making, and I can only hope that you will continue to be as stupid in the future as you've been in the past...
julian67
· 1 year ago
err, I don't have a strategy for winning desktop customers, nor do I have a continued failure or a continued success for that matter. Perhaps you believe you're talking to a product manager from Novell or IBM or Canonical? It's a blog you dipshit.
Using exciting phrases like "vendor ecosystem" is probably very satisfying but a sale is a sale is a sale. As long as the vendor is selling, ideally at a profit, he's in business, i.e. commerce. that's the same for free software, proprietary software, butchers bakers and candlestick makers.
You're an asshole.
Wait for the popping noise.
John
· 1 year ago
err, I don't have a strategy for winning desktop customers, nor do I have a continued failure or a continued success for that matter.
Nor do you have a brain.
Perhaps you believe you're talking to a product manager from Novell or IBM or Canonical?
No, I'm talking to someone who doesn't know shit about vendor channels.
Using exciting phrases like "vendor ecosystem" is probably very satisfying but a sale is a sale is a sale.
LMAO! Yeah, you just keep telling yourself that, amateur hour. Try selling to government buyers in the same way that you sell to retailers. Just watching you try to cut through the red tape without slitting your wrists would be amusing...
You're an asshole.
Was that supposed to hurt? LMFAO! C'mon, let's see some real anger, Francis ...
Wait for the popping noise.
Sorry, you don't have any more brain cells left to die.
julian67
· 1 year ago
gosh, so when selling is difficult due to tendering procedures and audits it ceases to be business! Quick, someone tell MS that all their sales to governments aren't a comercial activity. Perhaps they'll stop declaring them in their profits or stop paying a dividend on that portion of their profits.....
twat.
John
· 1 year ago
gosh, so when selling is difficult due to tendering procedures and audits it ceases to be business!
No, douchebag, selling to different customers requires going through different channels, and each of the channels have their own rules. Companies like Microsoft treat government customers very differently than resellers, OEMs, retailers, etc, because the rules are very different. Government customers often require a long qualification process.
But whatever, genius. I'm done arguing with you. /fuckoff
twat.
Yeah, that's right, fat boy. Your girlfriend or wife's twat: It's ... just ... what I do (or course, don't sweat it. I used a condom).
julian67
· 1 year ago
"Companies like Microsoft treat government customers very differently than resellers, OEMs, retailers, etc, because the rules are very different. Government customers often require a long qualification process."
Yes therea re different sales channels for retailers, OEMs, governments etc. And when they successfully win that contract or make that sale, that's commerce. The government is in procurement and the vendor is in business. Selling goods and/or services to make a profit is called C O M M E R C E.
You're an idiot with a tiny dick.
John
· 1 year ago
@julian67: You're an idiot with a tiny dick.
Your girlfriend doesn't think so, fat boy. I did her every way possible, while you were fucking around with your crappy FOSS software, trying to get it all to work. See, that's the primary benefit of using Windows and OS X: Extra TIME. Lots of it. Which leaves me free to fuck your girlfriend. ;-p
julian67
· 1 year ago
Gosh!!
But it must be *really* small because she didn't notice anything.
Or are you perhaps confusing the concept of "A Woman" with "Mrs Palm & Her Five Lovely Daughters"?
I think we should be told.
John
· 1 year ago
But it must be *really* small because she didn't notice anything.
If I want feedback from my personal cum dumpster, I'll ask, myself. Meanwhile, enjoy sloppy seconds.
John
· 1 year ago
wait for the popping noise.
Rrrrright. The sound of your last brain cell dying...
julian67
· 1 year ago
It's the sound you'll hear if you ever manage to get your heads out your assholes.
Could be quite a chorus in the playground :-)
Paul
· 1 year ago
"I looked at reports of Asus's global sales reports for the Asus Eee PC, which show 1.7 million sales in the first 6 months of 2008, apparently about 300,000 fewer than anticipated."
Link or it didn't happen.
nick chan
· 1 year ago
using Nlite, I can customize XP pre-installation, removing many unwanted components, and making a bootable unattended XP setup which is by far more attractive and easy than any other linux distro in existence.
w
· 1 year ago
>But best of all, I don't have to update my entire distro to get Firefox 3. Yeah, me also - I just download binaries from the official sites and unpack to home directory. Thats so easy that every linux hater should manage to do this...
gigaherz
· 1 year ago
That might work for firefox3, but some years ago I managed to fuckup a Linux installation by trying to install some program (and its thousand dependencies) bypassing the package manager... after that, it would always error out, and not let me update or install anything anymore. Which didn't matter much because I soon forgot I even had it installed, and some time later I got rid of that partition.
IMHO, centralized package repositories and system-wide package management seems highly unreliable, given the kind of "openness" they have to live with. Windows' way, and its "dll hell" (which I fail to see) doesn't seem to be causing any problem to most of the applications! but then again, Windows applications usually have ONE single executable for ALL windows editions since either win95 or win2k, and that's because of 9x-nt differences which had been there since nearly the beginning.
Gilligan
· 1 year ago
No way to install additional software? SMS, Castanet Tuner? Jeez.
Stallmanix
· 1 year ago
You can use a patched TS to have more than one user logged in at any given time. Winconnect or xpunlimited are a good option.
mig
· 1 year ago
where is the real hate? have you gone on vacation? come on bring on miguel (delcaza) to show off his hatred if ours truly hasn't got anything left
Ashton
· 1 year ago
Great post. Great points. It's nice when someone educated puts their two cents out there. It gives hope to the human race.
"If you think the "common desktop user" spends ANY time WHATSOEVER reading tech blogs, you're the dumbest shitcock on the internet"
Tech blog? It's just some guy bitching.
Jerry
· 1 year ago
Tech blog? It's just some guy bitching.
Rrrrright. Then WTF is he bitching about? Tabloid news? The price of oil? No, dumbfuck. He's bitching about Linux tech. Thank you for playing.
monestri
· 1 year ago
If his rants were so outragous and he had the sense to present some logical arguments then I might consider this academic.
You're right, he's bitching. Unfortunatly he can't present anything worth reading while he's on his period.
The common desktop user is technologically ignorant, incredibally cocky, and an all around dick when he thinks he's unidentifiable. So you've heard of linux. So you're on a "tech blog." That doesn't make you any less of a dick. It does make you like 95% of the people on the internet. Congradulations!!! You're the 100,000,000th asshole to connect to an ISP. You've won a free lesson on how to be a troll. Google "internet Troll" to claim your prize.
*Sigh* and i'm just as bad for playing your little game. Peace.
matt
· 1 year ago
Please learn to spell.
zab
· 1 year ago
I'm a user of Ubuntu Linux and Windows Vista. I dual boot. I like 'em both.
What I like better is your attitude towards the whole thing. You add little unprofessional comments such as "Look Ma! No compiler! Imagine that." and "Thanks for playing."
You obviously aren't taking this as serious as Aaron Toponchebag. This makes you look like the cocky, care free guy that's right and knows what he's talking about, while the other kid just looks like the angry zit-faced nerd that thinks he's trying to prove something. You are probably out on the beach surfing, or having fun somewhere while he sits around trying to find things that make linux better than windows.
Matter of fact, I'm going to follow your lead, and get off this stupid computer. Both OS's are useless and only waste my valuable time. Time to go surfing!
348 comments? What a fucking mess. I tried reading a couple of the comments, and I keeled over from lack of blood flowing to the part of my brain that gives a shit. Not only are pro-linux lusers demented, most of their posts are about as interesting and coherent as a US senator.
Get a load of this slice of whine and lame from "Enrique": "Pompous me? It is not I who says "Look at this URL, that is what _we_ think of you blablabla". Who we? I repeat, who do you think you are? You won't look any more adult by just calling me names."
What the fuck is that? "Who do you think you are?"? "calling me names"??? What a whiny little bitch. Fuck this noise. This steaming shitpile isn't even worth trolling.
Nice blog man, keep it up ! I'm a linux/OSS lover, and I think you point the right weakness of this world ! Well very interesting and amazing to read.
+
Martheen
· 1 year ago
All these times I thought despite the all the deficiencies of Linux, they still give more freedom compared to Windows. Thanks to you sir, I now totally believe that it's Windows who gives us more freedom and better sleep at night. Inspiring!
Joseph Alois Ratzinger
· 1 year ago
All these times I thought despite the all the deficiencies of Linux, they still give more freedom compared to Windows. Thanks to you sir, I now totally believe that it's Windows who gives us more freedom and better sleep at night. Inspiring!
Well done! You missed the whole point! Congratulations!
Apparently it doesn't matter how SHIT Linux is, if it's more "free" then that equals BETTER.
I'll wager it was a hardware fault. I see a 5-10% failure rate in new systems that we purchase, regardless of vendor, within the first month or two of service. Usually either glitched RAM or bad motherboards. Get a few drives that die within the first 6 months too. That goes for desktops and servers both.
The reliability of PC hardware hasn't exactly been improving these last few years.
I wonder why they weren't running Red Flag Linux, or whatever the Chinese are supposed to have..
nobody:nogroup
· 1 year ago
Yes, i agree. Since Windows 2000 the most bluescreens i have seen were based on a hardware defect. The others were based on codecs using the DirectX API the wrong way. Would be nice for none gamers if they didn't place it in the base install.
"I wonder why they weren't running Red Flag Linux, or whatever the Chinese are supposed to have." The hardware is from Lenovo. And Lenvo recommends Windows for the most of their Systems. Linux based systems are not yet ready for the average users desktop. Don't get me wrong. Linux(!) is, but the distributions are not.
Lenovo has made the right decision and chosen the most tested hardware/software combination for the job. It's not about love or hate. It's all about getting the job done. No bleeding edge Vista, only well tested (by you, LH, many others and me) XP Systems. Does not really hurt me. I'm sure there are many Linux based servers in the background doing a good job. ;-)
thecodewitch
· 1 year ago
@nobody:nogroup
Lets piss away the day replying to a brainless troll, in this case "nobody:nogroup"
Brainless blurting: If you develop an application with more then one button, you will always find an idiot for pressing the wrong one.
This is a very common attitude among immature and self righteous freetards. According to Stallmanites and other similar pond scum, the user deserves no respect, and the programmer doesn't have to strain themselves to understand the user's point of view, and the user's universe of concepts. Like a retarded new-age fingerpainting class, the programmer is "free" to implement whatever garbage he feels like, and then, in the typical fashion of an arrogant, petulant little hippie, expects people to make use of the pile of dogshit he just produced.
This, on its own, isn't a problem if the programmer just wants to amuse himself or experiment with something. The problem arises when freetards start claiming that some broken tech demo is ready for people to use. Where linux really fucks itself over, shooting itself in the foot with a minigun, it that this ends up indirectly hurting the reputations of those very rare, actually competent open source programmers who make useful things that treat the user like a thinking, intelligent being, and not a moron.
Another idiotic quote: Windows is always good for a laugh: (Reference to the BSoD at the olympic opening ceremony)
Dear Mr. Megadouche,
Linux never crashes, all its software works perfectly, and when there is a problem, there is a helpful staff of several million monkey devtard "programmers" around the world making "all bugs shallow", all of whom are courteous and polite, and will consider your problem thoughtfully, and provide a response, if not a solution within 2 business days.
If you believe that, I know a couple of Nigerian princes who would like to talk to you.
Wanker.
nobody:nogroup
· 1 year ago
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Incoming moaning on em0. Should we let it pass? You deserve all our respect. We don't want to overwhelm you with details. Just make your choice and we wish you happy computing. Thanks for using our software.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ YAY. Got some new sort off troll out off his hole. Warning thecodewitch tries an u-turn in discussion. Should we allow his woolgathering? We don't want to overwhelm you with details. Just make your choice and we wish you happy computing. Thanks for using our software.
"Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this."
@thecodewitch. So when it rains and your head get's wet you blame your shoes, right? Shut the f.. up.
Everybody likes solving puzzles. So, here is an easy one for you.
Who said that? (Yes, i know you don't know even one of them. So cheating is alowed for you. Go google for them.)
"...treat the user like a thinking, intelligent being, and not a moron." "If you think your users are idiots, only idiots will use it." (substitute "it" with "your software") "Let's face it, the average computer user has the brain of a Spider Monkey."
Dear Mr. Wanker,
you should fire the stupid freetard who wrote the e-mail. Our experts LH and TCW have done a serious research.
Linux is unusable, all software running on top of it sucks, and when there is a problem, it is impossible to find somebody around the world to fix it. We finally will use another OS for our mission critical tasks.
The most important results, facts and proofs: 1. Linux crashes so often, that you must build clusters to keep parts of the system up (http://www.top500.org/list/2008/06/100). Even for the price of $100 million there is no soundcard support in the kernel.
2. Never use Linux based webservers, the truth about them is, there is no way to protect them from LAMP infection. Many Power-Users aknowledged that.
3. When it comes to fileserving, you must beware of the "Google Dance" putting heavy load on your server. The problem is called out for SAMBA and is not fixable at the moment. In the next version of the Vista firewall there will be a SMB2 (Samba Melody Blocker 2) feature. But till then you shouldn't use Linux based systems for fileserving.
4. You always have to worry about your system, it is always under attack by an evil group called FSF (Free Software Foundation). FSF is an organisation like Greenpeace, but it's more like an evil GNU. We all know GNUs have supergnu powers and kill penguins "just for fun". These evil hackers are fighting for the freedom of software and break into computers to free all the installed applications. It is not proven by know, but we have a strong suspicion that they are responsible for the missing part in the apple logo. They use a tool called GCC (General Computer Cracker) to HURD your system.
We will not use Linux, Free, Open and NetBaSeD software for our business. It's all crap.
Yours, staying offline Megadouche
TCW/TH Enterprises
@thecodewitch And now pull the plug, please! If you need a HowTo (documentation), let me know. Since you are not my neighbor, helping you should be ok.
thecodewitch
· 1 year ago
What is this?? A funny and interesting reply from a linux user with a sense of humour?
Open source software is an excellent idea. Programmers sharing code and ideas is an excellent idea. I just hate linux for being shithouse, and stallman for giving open source a bad name by trying to turn open source into some sort of retarded commie crusade, which it isn't. Open source is just that - open source, nothing more.
Ghostshaw
· 1 year ago
A small comment, there are a few tricks to make windows allow 2 (and even more (dunno if its infinit)) users to login at the same time. It might take you a little time and some googling, but no more then setting up SSH in a proper and secure way tbh.
Victor
· 1 year ago
Couldn't agree more. Anyone who actually is or was a sysadmin knows that Windows is better.
app
· 1 year ago
LH, don't confuse RDP with Remote Assistance. They are actually 2 entirely different things with completely different purposes.
Remote Assistance is for helping noobs fix their crap over the internet.
RDP is for logging into a server and getting serious amounts of work done.
I think the problem that guy was having with RDP and only one user being able to be logged in on a machine running XP Pro is because he was using the wrong OS on the host machine.
XP Pro is a desktop OS, not a server OS. It is meant to be used by a single user at a time. A server version such as Windows 2003 Server or Windows 2008 Server would allow multiple users logged in at the same time, each using their own desktop account on the system.
I have done this. As a matter of fact, I downloaded the RDP client and installed it on an old 233mhz, 64MB ram, WinME machine and connected over a 33.6k dialup connection, to another running 2008 Server. There was always at least one other person logged into the server, besides me, at the same time. We all had our own desktop accounts and whatever any of us did didn't interfere with anyone else. You wouldn't even notice anyone else was logged in, unless they messaged you or something.
I was able to run software through the RDP client that I could never have installed, nevermind run, on the WinME machine (like Firefox 3). I was also able to take advantage of the generous bandwidth available to the host machine and download a lot of large PDF files to the server, that I needed in order to get my work done.
I was able to complete, in a single day, an amount of work that would have taken me a month or longer if I had only the old painfully slow WinME machine and its equally slow dialup connection to deal with.
Also, I have tried to accomplish the same with VNC. I gave up pretty quickly after the VNC viewer caused low resource warnings on the WinME client machine, not to mention how much slower it was to do anything. For example, there was a serious delay between when I moved my mouse on the client machine and saw the cursor move on the remote server. Too much damn waiting involved to get anything done.
RDP on Windows rocks, when you know how to use it properly.
With a really good server that has the hardware that can handle the load, one can set up a nice system where a bunch of old cheap low end 9x desktop machines connect to the server with RDP to run all the software they need.
You can run the latest & greatest software on old trash that way. It's much cheaper and easier than buying a mid-range to high-end system for every desktop in your business, and then installing seperate copies of all the software needed, and then having to maintain all those systems.
You just need a basic Win9x install on machines you can find in the trash and an RDP client on them...nothing else. Very fast & easy to fix if anything goes wrong on any client machine, and quite cheap to replace if one of them dies.
app
· 1 year ago
I don't know why my comment was posted multiple times. I appologize. It wasn't intended.
Maybe it was because I surf the internet with Javascript turned off, by default. I think disqus doesn't like it.
app
· 1 year ago
LH, don't confuse RDP with Remote Assistance. They are actually 2 entirely different things with completely different purposes.
Remote Assistance is for helping noobs fix their crap over the internet.
RDP is for logging into a server and getting serious amounts of work done.
I think the problem that guy was having with RDP and only one user being able to be logged in on a machine running XP Pro is because he was using the wrong OS on the host machine.
XP Pro is a desktop OS, not a server OS. It is meant to be used by a single user at a time. A server version such as Windows 2003 Server or Windows 2008 Server would allow multiple users logged in at the same time, each using their own desktop account on the system.
I have done this. As a matter of fact, I downloaded the RDP client and installed it on an old 233mhz, 64MB ram, WinME machine and connected over a 33.6k dialup connection, to another running 2008 Server. There was always at least one other person logged into the server, besides me, at the same time. We all had our own desktop accounts and whatever any of us did didn't interfere with anyone else. You wouldn't even notice anyone else was logged in, unless they messaged you or something.
I was able to run software through the RDP client that I could never have installed, nevermind run, on the WinME machine (like Firefox 3). I was also able to take advantage of the generous bandwidth available to the host machine and download a lot of large PDF files to the server, that I needed in order to get my work done.
I was able to complete, in a single day, an amount of work that would have taken me a month or longer if I had only the old painfully slow WinME machine and its equally slow dialup connection to deal with.
Also, I have tried to accomplish the same with VNC. I gave up pretty quickly after the VNC viewer caused low resource warnings on the WinME client machine, not to mention how much slower it was to do anything. For example, there was a serious delay between when I moved my mouse on the client machine and saw the cursor move on the remote server. Too much damn waiting involved to get anything done.
RDP on Windows rocks, when you know how to use it properly.
With a really good server that has the hardware that can handle the load, one can set up a nice system where a bunch of old cheap low end 9x desktop machines connect to the server with RDP to run all the software they need.
You can run the latest & greatest software on old trash that way. It's much cheaper and easier than buying a mid-range to high-end system for every desktop in your business, and then installing seperate copies of all the software needed, and then having to maintain all those systems.
You just need a basic Win9x install on machines you can find in the trash and an RDP client on them...nothing else. Very fast & easy to fix if anything goes wrong on any client machine, and quite cheap to replace if one of them dies.
app
· 1 year ago
LH, don't confuse RDP with Remote Assistance. They are actually 2 entirely different things with completely different purposes.
Remote Assistance is for helping noobs fix their crap over the internet.
RDP is for logging into a server and getting serious amounts of work done.
I think the problem that guy was having with RDP and only one user being able to be logged in on a machine running XP Pro is because he was using the wrong OS on the host machine.
XP Pro is a desktop OS, not a server OS. It is meant to be used by a single user at a time. A server version such as Windows 2003 Server or Windows 2008 Server would allow multiple users logged in at the same time, each using their own desktop account on the system.
I have done this. As a matter of fact, I downloaded the RDP client and installed it on an old 233mhz, 64MB ram, WinME machine and connected over a 33.6k dialup connection, to another running 2008 Server. There was always at least one other person logged into the server, besides me, at the same time. We all had our own desktop accounts and whatever any of us did didn't interfere with anyone else. You wouldn't even notice anyone else was logged in, unless they messaged you or something.
I was able to run software through the RDP client that I could never have installed, nevermind run, on the WinME machine (like Firefox 3). I was also able to take advantage of the generous bandwidth available to the host machine and download a lot of large PDF files to the server, that I needed in order to get my work done.
I was able to complete, in a single day, an amount of work that would have taken me a month or longer if I had only the old painfully slow WinME machine and its equally slow dialup connection to deal with.
Also, I have tried to accomplish the same with VNC. I gave up pretty quickly after the VNC viewer caused low resource warnings on the WinME client machine, not to mention how much slower it was to do anything. For example, there was a serious delay between when I moved my mouse on the client machine and saw the cursor move on the remote server. Too much damn waiting involved to get anything done.
RDP on Windows rocks, when you know how to use it properly.
With a really good server that has the hardware that can handle the load, one can set up a nice system where a bunch of old cheap low end 9x desktop machines connect to the server with RDP to run all the software they need.
You can run the latest & greatest software on old trash that way. It's much cheaper and easier than buying a mid-range to high-end system for every desktop in your business, and then installing seperate copies of all the software needed, and then having to maintain all those systems.
You just need a basic Win9x install on machines you can find in the trash and an RDP client on them...nothing else. Very fast & easy to fix if anything goes wrong on any client machine, and quite cheap to replace if one of them dies.
julian67
· 1 year ago
I'm happy to accept that if you install XP SP3 now and you're also fairly knowledgeable and hence competent to set it up and adminster it it then you will have several years of mostly problem free use. Judging by their apparent lower primate mental status that rules out 95% of people and 99% of the MS fanboys who post here which is why the rest of us can line our pockets with cash for fixing the shit :-)
I quite enjoy a lot of the lame attacks by MS fanboys because they're so dumb and fun to torment, and I enjoy the main blogs because they're mostly true, but when I see stuff like Mr Toponce writes I shudder. It's as bad as the ill informed crap from the various pointy headed Windows advocates. It's slightly painful to see someone claiming to be a systems adminstrator of Windows machines who apparently isn't aware of powershell, or much else about Windows or even free software outside of the veil of blindness that is Ubuntu.
It's a shame that this blog is focusing more and more on Ubuntu, which is not (yet) a credible server OS and while popular is hardly used outside of SoHo and home desktop/laptop use. There are millions of GNU/Linux servers and desktops out there which were installed with Slackware, Gentoo or Red Hat or Debian years ago and have just been updated and dist upgraded as required, none of this 6 month release cycle BS, and no excitement.
As for Windows XP anyone who was lucky enough to install it pre SP1 6 or 7 years ago and actually use it knows for sure there was no way anyone got 3 years out of it without some serious fucking problems. SP1 fixed some stuff. XP SP2 was in effect a new OS from the kernel upwards and finally some progress. Still not exactly secure but at least the problems started to lose their Olympic standard comedy status and the OS became stable. XP SP3 seems pretty solid but more demanding on resources than the earlier versions. Finally after 7 years MS gets it right. Obviously there's only one sane course of action from this point. Withdraw it from sale, try to persuade everyone to stop using it and hope everyone buys into the software industry's version of the Titanic. Beauty! Luckily for MS there's not yet a global shortage of dimwits and ze plan is firking ferry vell.
Joseph Alois Ratzinger
· 1 year ago
"It's a shame that this blog is focusing more and more on Ubuntu, which is not (yet) a credible server OS and while popular is hardly used outside of SoHo and home desktop/laptop use. There are millions of GNU/Linux servers and desktops out there which were installed with Slackware, Gentoo or Red Hat or Debian years ago and have just been updated and dist upgraded as required, none of this 6 month release cycle BS, and no excitement."
As far as I understood, this blog is about Linux on the desktop. I don't think we care about it on the server, where it seems to be OK.
"As for Windows XP anyone who was lucky enough to install it pre SP1 6 or 7 years ago and actually use it knows for sure there was no way anyone got 3 years out of it without some serious fucking problems. SP1 fixed some stuff. XP SP2 was in effect a new OS from the kernel upwards and finally some progress. Still not exactly secure but at least the problems started to lose their Olympic standard comedy status and the OS became stable."
Good point.
LHB Supporter
· 1 year ago
U sucker, this blog is about Linux on desktop. And Ubuntu is the most used desktop Linux distro, hence the focus on ubuntu. I am surprised man, u guyz still havent got the point of this blog and wat it is for.
julian67
· 1 year ago
1: I referred to both desktop and server
2: Ubuntu isn't the most used desktop. In fact almost every really huge deployment of desktop Linux is of Red Hat or SLED (Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop). This includes huge companies like Audi, Wallmart, Peugot-Citroen etc and entire states like Kerala in India, the schools of Indiana USA...a quick google can find lots of examples. For instance: http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2008/04/deploying-kd... Debian + KDE being deployed on the desktop in Brazilian schools. 53000 school labs servicing 52 million users. Not a typo! That's Fifty Two Million Users and not an Ubuntu installer to be seen.
But never mind, you'll fit in well here with posts like that. Being ignorant, stupid, ill informed and incapable of spelling isn't necessarily the handicap people claim. Have you considered tech journalism, perhaps as a features writer for zdnet?
ranpha
· 1 year ago
Red Hat and Suse Linux distros are not free in cost, unlike Ubuntu. And if I were to use anecdotal stats like you did, I can point to http://distrowatch.com/index.php?dataspan=52 too, which shows Red Hat at no. 27 while SLED is nowhere to be seen (Fedora and openSUSE does not count). Ubuntu naturally is the top of the pile.
BTW, Enterprise desktop != home desktop.
vanjab
· 1 year ago
If you look at one of the earlier posts, you'll see that distrowatch is merely a tracker of click-throughs on its website.
52 million is a really fucking big number.
guzzie
· 1 year ago
correct! (sorry ranpha)
but how do you then measure the penetration ? By the number of downloads ? How do you take the number of people in account that dumped it after a few weeks ?
The tracker doesn't give a correct view in absolute numbers but it's useful when you look at it in percentages since they only count unique IP's per day.
julian67
· 1 year ago
You can't accurately measure it. Companies like Red Hat and Novell and Xandros can measure the number of licenses sold and they and their partner OEMs can measure the number of pre-installs, but essentially that's the limit on hard info. A single purchased CD or downloaded iso might equate to no install at all or it might equate to hundreds or even thousands. Any of those installs could be to replace a licensed Windows or Mac install, an unlicensed Windows install or it could be to dual boot or it could be on a computer that was built or supplied without any pre-installed OS or license.
You can't even get a decent measure from web analytics because browser user agent strings could be saying nothing at all or even be set to show as IE on XP. This is fairly common and will remain so as long as a few important web sites only render properly in IE.
A lot of people posting here are convinced that Ubuntu has the biggest install base of desktop distros, but they're forgetting that Linux on the desktop has been around for much longer than Ubuntu's 3 years and some very big players have been winning big enterprise deployments for a long time. These deals aren't a matter of individuals downloading an iso or sharing a CD, it's tens of thousands of installs at a time.
LHB Supporter
· 1 year ago
Dude, stats don't tell you anything, just go out there and try to find out for yourself the comparison between Ubuntu and the other Linux distros. No Linux distro has ever been so popular, and it has definitely opened the gates for others to enter the desktop, the task at which many other distros mentioned above failed miserably (till ubuntu came that is, after that no doubt there have been improvements in others too).
The point of this blog is that, if Linux has to give any competition to the Monopoly of Windows (and its a big Monopoly, more than 80% of Pakistanis who own a computer, have no clue that there is something other that XP or Vista, they have no choice) It has to overcome some problems. Problems like, no proprietary audio/video upfront, resorting to command line so often. How many XP home users u know who resort to command line for anything??
The point is, that Linux is awesome system but there are some basic assumptions needed to be change to be ready for the home users. It needs to assume that every user who uses the system is the dumbest fucker alive on earth. This is what Microsoft does and they have gone to the limits with this policy of theirs, the new visual studios come stacked with Intellisense and other so called programmer friendly features resulting in a growing number of dumb programmers who cannot code without an IDE. This is the route Linux should take, though not to those limits.
And I hope ur small brain can comprehend my writing now.
nobody:nogroup
· 1 year ago
Linux Hater's Blog We hate Linux. And you should too.
I can't see the "desktop" between "hate" and "Linux". Must be a bug in my linux system. OK, lets try OSX. No. Solaris? No. XP? No. Vista? No.
Where can i fill the report for the bug in the LH css file?
John
· 1 year ago
Where can i fill the report for the bug in the LH css file?
Just crap it into your mouth.
guzzie
· 1 year ago
It's a shame that this blog is focusing more and more on Ubuntu
Remove the "linux for humans" caption and I'll stop my whining on Ubuntu. Ubuntu is the ultima thule of Linux ego-tripping and as long as they keep sowing this PR and backfiring updates they'll keep harvesting criticism.
Ubuntu is currently the biggest contender for pre-installation on new machines and you know as well as I do that this is a bad service for the consumer. The happy few percentiles that will embrace it will not outweigh the overall majority that will feel screwed as they payed good money for something that they can't work with. They'll realize that the few bucks they saved on buying a system with linux results in an added cost of buying the good OS full-priced a few weeks later ( or having to download it illegally ). You can bet your ass that linux pre-installs are going to result in a very, very bad after-taste for the linsux community once the average consumer gets involved.
fgdsag
· 1 year ago
"linux for humans" Hey, guess what! the other linux distros are for animals!
julian67
· 1 year ago
woof
Only me
· 1 year ago
Not, the other distros are for lu$sers
Michael
· 1 year ago
Ubuntu is great for desktop, not for servers. Where I work CentOS rules the house, been using it for years.
akatch
· 1 year ago
You know, as a Linux user, I agree with some of the points on some of your posts, but if it's taking you TEN HOURS to "fix all the shit that broke" IN UBUNTU... you're doing it wrong. You really are. You also failed to factor in the 378 Windows Updates that XP demands that you get after a fresh install... taking approximately... a long damn time. Then of course it sits there and tells you every 5 minutes (unless you want to Start > Run > cryptic command that no ordinary user wants to look for that in any case only allows you to prolong the restart to something like 3 hours later... I could be wrong) that you need to restart your computer. Finally... if you didn't know you just needed a root user (or root permissions) to recreate your home directory for you, again... you're doing it wrong.
guzzie
· 1 year ago
You also failed to factor in the 378 Windows Updates that XP demands that you get after a fresh install... taking approximately... a long damn time.
It takes 10 hours to fix all the shit that broke on distupgrade. I can confirm that result, I got the same. Upgraded 6.06 -> 7.04 -> 7.10 -> 8.04. 10. hours. every. time. A friend whose ubuntu I had to fix also took 10 hours. And if it isn't 10 hours it feels like 10 hours. And I pretty much know what I'm doing and if I don't I know how to search through countless fixes for my problem posted on the net and discover how none of them work for me. But they worked for them. Forgot to mention: I am talking about notebooks here. The desktop was fine. Praised be the desktop.
And about that home dir, you recreate your EMPTY home dir which is absolutely marvelous. I can do that by hand thank you very much. And all the .* file magic is gone so you might as well start reconfiguring.
Lol Lolovici
· 1 year ago
Forgot something about the home dir. If you don't have the prudence to keep important stuff somewhere else (say, your porn collection) and enjoy the power of defaults (download to desktop) then you will need to get that back also.
Linux Rules
· 1 year ago
GREAT POST!
ALLAH AKBAR!
Linyos
· 1 year ago
"AND it's not out of date like 10 minutes after it's written, just because someone replaced a working subsystem with something "shiny"." This is what LTS releases are for - nothing is changed.
"Wow. I have to know what a kernel module and a terminal command to set up a firewall?" Nope, there's a GUI frontend for netfilter.
"Thank God! My rogue script only deleted my home directory! I'm so happy it spared my /usr/lib! I just have to reinstall Ubuntu to get my home directory back, right?" Nope, you can just recreate the directory and be on your merry way.
"Windows lets you install 3rd party software that you download from a website." You can do this on Ubuntu as well, just download the .deb. "AND it's not out of date like 10 minutes after it's written, just because someone replaced a working subsystem with something "shiny"." "But best of all, I don't have to update my entire distro to get Firefox 3. " Great contradiction here.
"If you had actually designed your system properly, I'd install once, like 4 years ago, and then I'd never care again. " In case you didn't realize, the LTS releases are meant to be used for a long time. No one is forcing you to upgrade to the newest release.
" Let's do some math. Let's say I set up XP once 3 years ago, and never had to do any installs, and it took me like 2 hrs to get the base OS and the apps that I use. Now if I had install Ubuntu, I'd be on my 6th update, and all the package downloads and installs takes at least 30 minutes each time, plus fixing the all the shit that broke takes at least (and I'm being super generous here) 10 hrs each time, so we arrive at a grand total of 63 hrs. 63 vs 2. Awesome. Thanks for playing." You have to reinstall XP every few years to keep it from slowing down, so that's completely wrong.
"Uhh... Remote Assistance? or install a VNC server (hey look! it's FREE!)? Dude, really, you're just starting to make yourself look bad." What's really funny about this is that there was support for multiple users over RDP in a beta of XP SP2, but it was removed in the final version, because it would violate XP's EULA. Funny how that isn't a problem in Linux.
.troll
· 1 year ago
In case you didn't realize, the LTS releases are meant to be used for a long time. No one is forcing you to upgrade to the newest release.
Except the latest LTS, Hardy Heron. Is full of fucking bugs! Audio doesn't work (and uses 20 sub-systems while it's about it), they've fucked up foreign keyboard support, the wireless manager still doesn't work and a multitude of other bugs. I know this, because I'm using the fucking thing.
You have to reinstall XP every few years to keep it from slowing down, so that's completely wrong.
LH is correct about the time spent upkeeping a Linux installation (certainly an Ubuntu one anyway). All the Freetards who say less time is spent downloading/installing upgrades are fucking liars. Frankly, I don't give a shit about doing updates on any OS, anyone that uses this as a arguing point is an idiot IMO.
Also, Windows vs. Linux updates is not a very fair comparison. Linux updates are for the OS and all installed applications, whereas Windows updates are for the OS and a few MS applications. It's a fucking stupid thing to be arguing about in the first place, both for Freetards and Wintwats.
ZiggyFish
· 1 year ago
Except the latest LTS, Hardy Heron. Is full of fucking bugs!Audio doesn't work (and "uses 20 sub-systems while it's about it), they've fucked up foreign keyboard support, the wireless manager still doesn't work and a multitude of other bugs. I know this, because I'm using the fucking thing."
It's working for me. have you posted a bug report, or stuff like that, With Linux unlike Windose, is a community project, so you can either post the problem to the bug reporting site (already integrated into the OS), or fix the problem your self and contribute back to the community.
"LH is correct about the time spent upkeeping a Linux installation (certainly an Ubuntu one anyway). All the Freetards who say less time is spent downloading/installing upgrades are fucking liars. Frankly, I don't give a shit about doing updates on any OS, anyone that uses this as a arguing point is an idiot IMO."
For a person who know how to reinstall stuff, it's OK, but what about the users, who only use their computer for email, and word processing, it then becomes, not only a waist of time, but also a very expensive piece of equipment.
"Also, Windows vs. Linux updates is not a very fair comparison. Linux updates are for the OS and all installed applications, whereas Windows updates are for the OS and a few MS applications. It's a fucking stupid thing to be arguing about in the first place, both for Freetards and Wintwats."
When reading your post, this put you over the edge of complete insanity. it comes back to my above statement, the less you need to do to maintain it the better off you are and less cost to the consumer.
LIS
· 1 year ago
Congratulations. You Won 3 Aarons.
.troll
· 1 year ago
It's working for me. WorksForMe(tm) is not a valid response. Try going to YouTube, or just go to a site with Flash on it, then try playing a song in Amarok (or playing any audio). Due to the changes in Ubuntu the media player will crash. No, it's not the fault of Flash, it worked in the last version of Ubuntu, so Canonical fucked it up, not Adobe.
have you posted a bug report, or stuff like that, It's a well known Canonical fuck up with including PulseAudio.
When reading your post, this put you over the edge of complete insanity Ad-hominem attacks are not valid responses to arguments.
the less you need to do to maintain it the better off you are and less cost to the consumer. But in Ubuntu you need to do more updating. So what the fuck are you talking about?
ZiggyFish
· 1 year ago
WorksForMe(tm) is not a valid response. Try going to YouTube, or just go to a site with Flash on it, then try playing a song in Amarok (or playing any audio). Due to the changes in Ubuntu the media player will crash. No, it's not the fault of Flash, it worked in the last version of Ubuntu, so Canonical fucked it up, not Adobe.
I don't use Amarok (it's a KDE app), I use rhythmbox. And WorksForMe(tm)
It's a well known Canonical fuck up with including PulseAudio.,
WorksForMe(tm), no seriously, Linux is about the community, so in other words, you give something to them, they'll give something back. The old saying, You get nothing for free. The Free in Free software, means that you have the right to use, (re)distribute (there's four of them, from stallman)
But in Ubuntu you need to do more updating. So what the fuck are you talking about?
But your updating more then the kernel (a new kernel only comes out every 2-3 months), your updating every bit of software (and drivers) you have installed, by rep. For example, Ubuntu updated you to the new Firefox, the day it was released. Also if you set up your computer correctly, you can automatically preform the updates, without lifting a finger (something that windows can't do).
Crunchinator
· 1 year ago
So if your car breaks down it isn't a problem because my car still works? If you buy a motherboard that used faulty capacitors it's not a problem if they blow out because I--using the same mother board--have working capacitors in mine? There was nothing wrong with the first release PS2s because mine kept working despite the numerous other people having faulty lasers in theirs? Those idiots were surely doing something wrong since mine works.
In short, working for you doesn't equate to not being faulty by design and therefore is irrelevant to his problems.
Post Script Giving back to the community doesn't mean they give back to you; sometimes they tell you to fuck off in one way or another.
ZiggyFish
· 1 year ago
"So if your car breaks down it isn't a problem because my car still works? If you buy a motherboard that used faulty capacitors it's not a problem if they blow out because I--using the same mother board--have working capacitors in mine? There was nothing wrong with the first release PS2s because mine kept working despite the numerous other people having faulty lasers in theirs? Those idiots were surely doing something wrong since mine works."
but in all those examples you have a choice, which is the same as Linux, I can pick from a lot of programs, that best fit my experience. Windows, not so much.
"In short, working for you doesn't equate to not being faulty by design and therefore is irrelevant to his problems.
Post Script Giving back to the community doesn't mean they give back to you; sometimes they tell you to fuck off in one way or another."
but they have already given you something, the program (for free), and a solution to your problem. If you don't like there response, so what, you can correct the programs problems and redistribute it (as long as you attribute the work and keep the derivative open source) the way you want.
Crunchinator
· 1 year ago
"but in all those examples you have a choice [...]"
Way to miss the point. Additionally, in all these examples you already made a choice and once that choice was made discovered faults that were out of your control. Furthermore, a choice that best fits your needs might not exist. For example, I do not like any of the DVD ripping utilities that I've tried on Linux. Yes, they exist, yes I can use them but I simply do not like them. This is a case of picking the one I hate the least.
"you can correct the programs problems and redistribute it [...]"
Yes, I could do all that just like you, not being satisfied with your airline experience, could launch your own airline and design and build your own jets. It's in the realm of possibility but far from an optimal solution and a very unrealistic expectation. Your expectation for me to invest quite a bit of time and money (all decisions are economic) into implementing my own solution is asinine.
Stavros
· 1 year ago
"This is what LTS releases are for - nothing is changed." Agreed, but this begs for the question, why not make this standard policy? plus it ties into the issue of packages aquired from an arbitrary website, and not having to update your whole system for a new version of a package, and an inherent strength/weakness of the development/distribution model:
packages are developed and (largely) maintained individually, upstream, new packages, thusly may well depend on newer subsystems, thus requiring the system upgrade, and defeating the purpose of running an LTS release, the point remains that if you're going to be going after the new features/packages either don't use an LTS, or wait for the backport, as well as if you're running an LTS release, you largely can't just download and install an arbitrary dep from an arbitrary website, at least not without expected problems and breakage down the line, again, negating the purpose of going with an LTS.
That's where the contradiction is, you either can install arbitrary debs from outside the repo, or you can run an LTS and not worry about ABI changes and breakage, you can't do both.
"Nope, you can just recreate the directory and be on your merry way"
Agreed, but I suspect the statement was a sarcastic one. the point, i reckon, was a properly designed system wouldn't allow a rogue script to even delete the home directory. I don't think anyone is implying that this is unique to Linux or anything. Largely there hasn't been a means implimented (on any system) to full mitigate such things, though some reasonable half-way attempts have been made: Windows has the ability to restore the system to an earlier state, OS X has time-machine, and the BSDs have jails which prevent damage from occuring outside of them. And Vista has UAC (to be honest, I haven't used Vista, but) I imagine UAC requires express user-interaction to allow a rogue script to be run in the first place.
"You can do this on Ubuntu as well, just download the .deb."
I suspect the point was more that you'd have to download a .deb built expressly for your version of Ubuntu (plus, I don't explicitely recall how apt handles debs installed via dpkg and not from a repo, come update time), if you expect it to install cleanly and not cause problems in the long run, as opposed to, say using a debian deb (on hardy) , or an intrepid deb (on hardy), or a gutsy deb (on hardy), or a RHEL rpm via alien (on hardy). This was the whole reason dependency tracking and distribution-specific repositories were implimented, anyone else remember the early "rpm hell" days?
As opposed to Windows, where you can download an arbitrary exec and expect it to install and run, largely without as hitch, be it on 2k, XP, 2k3, vista, or 2k8, with the obvious forward/backward limitations (a package expressly packaged for an earlier iteration will run on a later one (be it via compatability subsystems, or a largely uniform abi) but a binary packaged expressly for a current iteration (vista, specifically, due to abi changes), quite obviously won't run on an earlier version (but something for 2k3 very well should be expected to run on XP). Or there's OS X self-contained AppDirs, a package designed for Panther, almost universally runs fine on Tiger, for example.
Again, it's a flaw/feature inherent to using shared libraries.
"Great contradiction here."
There's no contradiction, it's an inherent flaw/feature (depending on viewpoint) of using shared libraries, everything depends on everything else, to get the new package, you have to update all of it's dependancies and their dependencies and their dependencies as well, often this leads to a full system update. This isn't the case on other systems, since Windows uses static libraries, OS X uses self-contained AppDirs, and ports/source based systems simply build the new package against existing libraries.
The shit becoming absolete after 10 minutes is obviously exaggerated, but is a feature/flaw (again, based on viewpoint) inherent to the bazaar development model, this isn't much of a problem in more cathederal-like models, since it goes top-down, there's extensive focus on system stability and integration (they're designing a full OS, rather than packaging individually maintained parts into a distribution; resulting in stable ABIs that don't change (until major revisions), with a failsafe/compatability layer set in place, for example Windows impliments multiple paralell subsystems (wow/wo32/sua/sfu/wow64) to handle operation of things build using the legacy subsystems, OS X uses Classic emulation, and FreeBSD uses something similar to the Windows approach (and takes it a step further, with binary compatabily with distinct other OSes, through the Linuxulator, SCOx, and legacy-FreeBSD subsystems).
All the while, the mainline/current ABI remains in a stable and largely unchanging, you can expect something built using the ABI to run from day one until its EoL. Compare that to Linux, where drastic ABI changes in the kernel, between even single point releases end up breaking things being (relatively) commonplace.
"You have to reinstall XP every few years to keep it from slowing down, so that's completely wrong."
No, you really don't. You just need to know enough to defrag regularily and run basic maintenence on a semi-regular basis (clean out cruft, clean out the registry, purge junk you don't need anymore, purge unused dlls left over from uninstalls, etc, etc) It's good practice for any system. Minus the defragging, I do the same on my FreeBSD server and on my Macs, used to do the same on my Linux systems back when I ran them (especially with Gentoo), and have largely prioblem-free systems as a result, the only time I need to "re / install" is OS upgrades/buildworlds.
Just like it's common sense to press the importance of keeping regular backups and not to install random crap (on any system), I like to press the importance of regular system maintenence, even the basics go a long way.
"What's really funny about this is that there was support for multiple users over RDP in a beta of XP SP2, but it was removed in the final version, because it would violate XP's EULA. Funny how that isn't a problem in Linux."
The thing is, remote assistance wasn't meant to be a terminal server (that's what the server editions of Windows are for, see Terminal Services). Remote assistance was, and this may come as a shock, meant to provide... Remote assistance. Think of it, it's a workstation OS, it isn't designed to have multiple users connected to it (as opposed to the server editions, and terminal services.), RDP is designed to allow the netadmin access to individual workstations, as well as remote access to a single workstation, plus there's the caveats of a primarily gui-driven system, where allowing multiple users simultaneous access to the same desktop gets terribly messy. Note that even on Unix, it doesn't work this way, remote users connect to individuals X11 sessions on individual TTys.
It's a design choice. It's not fair, nor particularily wise, to compare remote assistance or VNC to Terminal Services of SSH. They aren't designed for the same purpose. If you're going to make the comparison, make it between OpenSSH and Terminal Services, or between RA/RDP/VNC to RDP/VNV/X11 forwarding (which Windows can do as well, via SUA/SFU).
dmoisan
· 1 year ago
When you do use an Ubuntu LTS and something doesn't work, you're always told: " Oh, use the latest [beta] release!" Ubuntu and Linux in general does not have good support for older releases cuz the cool kids (and really, every developer) are using the latest. Then when the betas break, they can tell you, "oh, you shouldnt've used that! it's *beta*!"
Stavros
· 1 year ago
That's because you're supposed to be using an SLA if you want support (from Canonical) for an LTS release, those will cost you, though.
Developers are supposed to, and are expected to be using the 'beta' versions, that's why they're called developer releases.
abc
· 1 year ago
I think it's hilarious that both this post and the parent missed the problem with a rogue script deleting your home directory - you've just lost all your personal files. Are you guys perhaps treating your OS as some kind of tech demo rather than a stable, reliable software system to which you'll trust your valuable work? Of course I wouldn't care either if my Ubuntu home directory was deleted - I don't use my Ubuntu install for anything but playing around. But in case I haven't been clear yet, the LH's point is that the Unix security model, which was designed to prevent multiple users on a mainframe from screwing eachother up, does as little as the Windows model against malware.
Stavros
· 1 year ago
Um, that was my point with the whole bit about how a properly designed system wouldn't allow the rogue script to be run in the first place, and by that definition, no popular system is properly designed, though there have been decent steps taken to minimize/contain the potential damage. The point was that it still isn't good enough.
Personally, I keep multiple backups of my personal stuff, with the data itself on a networked drive on a machine that isn't internet facing. if my home/my docs directory gets nuked, it's easy to recover the data, if it were to happen, it'd still piss me the hell off.
KillerB
· 1 year ago
//You have to reinstall XP every few years to keep it from slowing down, so that's completely wrong.//
only if you're a fuck-all stupid as you apparently seem to be. My Dell Inspiron 5300 has the original XP install (with updates, of courese) from four years ago. Very little noticeable slowdown, usually only when booting up. After that, smooth as ever.
The Penguin
· 1 year ago
Here's one for you Microsoft fanboys:
From Slashdot -
scribbles89 sends in a story that originally ran in SearchSecurity; it sounds like it could be a game-changer. "While this may seem like any standard security hole, other researchers say that the work is a major breakthrough and there is very little that Microsoft can do to fix the problems. These attacks work differently than other security exploits, as they aren't based on any new Windows vulnerabilities, but instead take advantage of the way Microsoft chose to guard Vista's fundamental architecture. According to Dino Dai Zovi..., 'the genius of this is that it's completely reusable. They have attacks that let them load chosen content to a chosen location with chosen permissions. That's completely game over.'"
Update: 08/08 14:23 GMT by KD : Changed the link, as the story first linked had been lifted without attribution.
Microsoft needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
Fess
· 1 year ago
This isn't some us-versus-them jerk-off session. If half the freetards that come to respond and defend the good name of Linux -really- knew all that much about FOSS, they'd get what this is all about.
Most of the people agreeing with LHB have probably forgotten more about Linux than the average Ubuntu freetard will ever know...
.troll
· 1 year ago
No, you need to wake up and learn to smell FUD when KDawson posts it:
In this paper we demonstrated that the memory protection mechanisms available in the latest versions of Windows are not always effective when it comes to preventing the exploitation of memory corruption vulnerabilities in browsers. They raise the bar, but the attacker still has a good chance of being able to bypass them.
[...]
The authors expect these problems to be addressed in future releases of Windows and browser plugins shipped by third parties.
Hardly 'game over' is it? Fucking freetards, you lot need to stop hugely under-estimating the abilites of our competitors.
mschaef
· 1 year ago
"Tar and bzip? turns out you don't need a separate archiving format and compression format if you support one that does both (zip)."
Zip has the problem that it requires a list of all files and their compressed sizes to be in the header of the ZIP file. This means that ZIP files cannot be streamed, which can be a very big problem.
.troll
· 1 year ago
Did you ever walk into a pub in a different town, and as soon as you walked through the door the whole place went silent? The music and all the conversations stopped, then everyone turns around to look at you.
That's exactly what happened when you entered this blog and posted that comment.
... {some tumbleweed floats past} ...
nobody:nogroup
· 1 year ago
@thecodewitch "but such a stupid feature shouldn't even be an option" In my humble opinion we shouldn't build bridges. LH could jump off them.
If you develop an application with more then one button, you will always find an idiot for pressing the wrong one.
@LH You call it "Linux Hater's" but you mean "Ubuntu Hater's". Some Windows and Ubuntu usability here, nothing else? Where are the facts about linux? What is wrong with linux? The development model, the monolithic kernel, the memory managment, the scheduler, the developers, the community, the supported plattforms,...? Do your homework and give us facts the next time.
Back to the article. You are talking about "windows automated install". So please tell me how you handle the product keys. I'm really stuck with this. We use here a single product key to install many machines. After the first login we identify the machine by the MAC address and take the right key out off a MAC to product key database. We do this with a cscript an register the machine at Microsoft automatically after changing the product key. And yes, we also own volume licenses. But Microsoft is not willing to convert our OEM licenses to volume licenses.
"Hey BTW, FYI, JIC, for your future reference, you should try googling things before you make claims like this." Hey, LH perhaps you should try out things before writing your next article.
Oh yes, the Windows firewall rocks! At a Vista presentation (ready for a new day) the speaker said: "...the firewall now even filters outgoing traffic". Wow, i call this innovative. By the way, a firewall is just a single instrument in a security concept. I don't need one on my laptop.
"Thank God! My rogue script only deleted my home directory!" (...)
Thank God! My sons rogue script only deleted his home directory! Got the point now?
"turns out you don't need a separate archiving format and compression format if you support one that does both (zip)." Do you know why this fails with my personal picture folder. I really would like to have a backup on DVD. Would be hard to loose nearly 3 GB pictures.
LH continues blubbering..."Let's do some math. Let's say I set up XP once 3 years ago, and never had to do any installs, and it took me like 2 hrs to get the base OS and the apps that I use."
Here is some user experience from me as debian user... Debian woody (Version 3) upgrade to Debian etch (Version 4) 1.) change apt sources took about 3 seconds perl -pi -e "s,woody,etch,g" /etc/apt/sources.list 2.) download in the background (15 minutes, but the machine is normal usable while downloading) apt-get update & 3.) Upgrade the system (about 3 minutes watching the screen and 1 minute answering questions) apt-get dist-upgrade 4.) boot new system reboot Bling, bling. Shiny new etch in about 4.5 minutes unproductive time and nothing broken! Do the math again. How about an article with your experience "Upgrade Windows 2000 to Windows XP" the next time?
And please stop trolling about cscript/wscript whatever scripting language. I know many using it, but not one who likes it. No doubt, the idea behind it is good. The implementation is...
Hey LH, wouldn't a "Perl Hater's" blog be nice too?
dexter
· 1 year ago
dear lord, you re all god damn idiots, all of you....ffs get laid or turn off your Ubunto or XP for a while and go out to jerk some...Geeessh, why do i bother, i m out of here.
monestri
· 1 year ago
Read a couple of posts. This blog is pretty funny, but I think we should just leave it at that. This blog really shouldn't be taken serioujsly. The author's complaints are no more based on fact than the idiotic linux users he attacks. I think we all need to take a step back and remember that an OS is just a tool. If you can afford windows and it does what you need it to do, great! If you have dozens and dozens of hours on your hands, too lazy to pirate windows, and want a free OS at the cost of your time, then use GNU.
I've seen a lot of verbal abuse on Ubuntu. What the author doesn't realize is that Ubuntu is the first distro that all the Windows idiots who are sick of spyware/malware/porn viruses go. Why? Because it's the easiest to install and the easiest transition from Windows. So What? Well that just means that Ubuntu is a leech for all the Windows retards who were stupid enough to let their system get infected in the first place. Let's stop picking on the dumb and ignorant here, shall we?
Though funny, I really wonder why a blog like this exists at all. Nobody is forced him to use linux. So the author wasted a few years of his life on GNU and now he's crying? Sounds like a "freetard" to me.
Anyways, as I've already stated, an OS is a tool. I use Gentoo for my daily needs (internet, email, multimedia, word proccessing, IM, IRC, subtitle editing, translation, and much more). I have an amazing uptime and I rarely run into problems. Learning linux took me several years, but now I've build such a stable OS that it requires no maintenance. Would I recommend it for an average user? God, no! Just stick with Windows. It's not all that bad. Linux for me is more of a learning experience.
That being said, I also dual boot into Windows primarily for gaming. Like I said, an OS is a tool. If it fits your needs, then use it. If it's doesn't, then don't. If you want to bitch about a bunch of people who develop software for free, then you're a kind of a tool yourself. If you want to bitch about the dumb people who use that software, then my IM is monostri. Give me a holla'.
P.S. If you decide to be a fanboy for one OS over another, what you don't is that Linux and Windows are in two completely different classes and are, in some respects, uncomparable.
I forgot about half of what I just wrote, so I should probably stop ranting now. Peace.
.troll
· 1 year ago
He started this blog because he does embedded systems development using Linux (IIRC), knows a lot about the subject, but has come to the sad conclusion that Linux is a way over-hyped, developer wank fest.
I believe the blog was borne of the disappointment felt at trying to help out in the FOSS community, only to find that the Free software development methods aren't all they're cracked up to be. Worse than this, it's marketed by a bunch of spotty Freetards, who keep insisting it's ready for everyone to use on their desktops, when it clearly does not meet everyone's needs.
Feel free to correct me, of course.
Personally, I'm one of the WorksForMe(tm) brigade who happily uses Ubuntu to get their work done. I advocate that everyone should use whatever software they fucking well want to.
monestri
· 1 year ago
:He started this blog because he does embedded systems development using Linux (IIRC), knows a lot about the subject, but has come to the sad conclusion that Linux is a way over-hyped, developer wank fest."
Cool. I was right on the wasting his life then bitching about it part. I definitly called it right there.
"Personally, I'm one of the WorksForMe(tm) brigade who happily uses Ubuntu to get their work done. I advocate that everyone should use whatever software they fucking well want to."
Neat, you're not retarded. Here's a cookie.
"Feel free to correct me, of course."
You're right, though one might argue that 99% of the population has never heard the word linux and that this blog is the only media attention linux gets by the common desktop user.
KillerB
· 1 year ago
//that this blog is the only media attention linux gets by the common desktop user.//
If you think the "common desktop user" spends ANY time WHATSOEVER reading tech blogs, you're the dumbest shitcock on the internet
Soyuz
· 1 year ago
"but has come to the sad conclusion that Linux is a way over-hyped, developer wank fest...."
Or may be he lost his job as he couldn't cope up with the complexities of developing app in Linux based platfroms. He could never let go of his dream of becoming a Software Engineer after having a IT Diploma that teaches how quickly you can develop a nice GUI app (A window with 2 buttons - one exit, one to open a MSgBox) with Visual Basic a world where "dim" lets you create any type of variable.
All was shattered when he had to wrestle with a command line compiler, intricate knowledge of OS and its libraries, No/Minimal standard API, incompitable GUI/Desktop shells.
I guess he called it a quit when his app failed to write to a file, later realizing that the app needs to have proper permission to do so ...
And of course his luser boss fired him who is mater of the Linux zen who can make a device driver work by putting magical lines in conf files or /proc files.
;)
anonymous
· 1 year ago
I use Gentoo for my daily needs (internet, email, multimedia, word proccessing, IM, IRC, subtitle editing, translation, and much more).
Wow. You're so L337 because you use Gentoo. *yawns*. That's amazing.
monestri
· 1 year ago
I'm neither claiming Gentoo is amazing nor boring. I just thought I'd include a paragraph for potential trolls to have a bite at. Oh look, I caught one!
Seriously though, I was just giving people an idea of what I use it for. I don't know if it's better / worse than xp, but it's fine for me.
It's just an OS. I don't get how you people can have personal attachments to an operating system. They're just tools. You don't go around doing Phillips vs. Hex, do you?
alexander
· 1 year ago
slotted ftw
Ham
· 1 year ago
P.S. If you decide to be a fanboy for one OS over another, what you don't is that Linux and Windows are in two completely different classes and are, in some respects, uncomparable.
I would agree. Linux isn't bad as a server OS. I have my doubts, though, that it will EVER be ready for the desktop. What annoys most people here is the near-constant stream of hype (and vitriolic criticism for anyone using an alternate platform) from FOSS advocates that "The Year of the Linux Desktop is Upon Us", the incessant blogs written by bewildered freetards who can't understand why Linux is going nowhere on the desktop, the difficulty involved in developing FOSS applications, atrocious usability, incompatibility, driver and configuration problems, etc, etc. We're tired of the Bullshit (TM).
matthews
· 1 year ago
It takes you ten hours to install linux every time??? That sucks no wonder you hate it your no good at it.
Crunchinator
· 1 year ago
Learn to read because he said it takes ten hours to fix all the broken crap after the install.
Pareto
· 1 year ago
I have to admit, I laughed at the 10 hour thing to fix the problems afterward. Not because it was false, but because it's so true, at least with my experience.
Hell, a common 'update' on Ubuntu totally fucked up my graphics card, and it must have taken at least 5 hours to fix, having to reinstall the graphics drivers 10 times, learning ctrl alt F2, to get to a fucking command prompt since the entire screen was white.
LinuxHater may or may not hate linux, but he's saying the exact same things that I am thinking and I happen to use/like it ;).
John
· 1 year ago
No, he hates it. You just like shit that breaks all the time so you can feel superior and l33t when you fix it, freetard.
matthews
· 1 year ago
Well sorry about my grammar, and I wasn't being super serious with my comments it was a joke. My first Linux machine took two days to fix the first time. Thank goodness I was dual boot! The next time I went to install on the same machine it took maybe a little more than two hours I kept my configuration hacks. My next two computers were bought with being Linux friendly in mind and it takes me less than an hour to get a nice install on my newest one. I think thats about the same for 2000 and Xp. As for reliability I personally have had about the same amount of hair pulling problems no matter what os I choose.
matthews
· 1 year ago
I highly recommend locking your kernel and the graphics driver in the package manager if either give you problems it saves you from that kind of trouble. I'm not saying that is the way it should be but it makes things work.
John
· 1 year ago
He really can't communicate!
John
· 1 year ago
you're*
you're no good at english, no wonder you have no friends and substitute with a LUG, you can't communicate!
Enrique
· 1 year ago
Hey, let's hate linux, but let's do it by actually using our brains to give real reasons. Otherwise it is just an 11-year old stupid-spoiled-whore rant.
"Thank God! My rogue script only deleted my home directory! I'm so happy it spared my /usr/lib! I just have to reinstall Ubuntu to get my home directory back, right?" Are you stupid? So what you say is that Linux is worse because you, by accident, can only delete your home directory and not /usr/lib. Will it displease you less if you could also delete /usr/lib?
Oh, so it is better to reinstall the whole thing _AND_ your backed-up personal files than just doing the latter?
"So, out of the crapware you listed that comes with Linux, the only ones that I could possibly want are OO and pidgin, and guess what, you can get those for Windows. Yay! Zip files? Have you heard of right-click, send to compressed folder? Yay! Tar and bzip? turns out you don't need a separate archiving format and compression format if you support one that does both (zip)." Hey, big brains, you can also use your divine zip compression format within linux. What are you trying to bitch about here? Tar and bzip... guess what? You can also use them in Windows if you install 3rd party apps... so Windows must be crap too. Stupid you are. You totally missed the point, which was that those 'crapware' come _PREINSTALLED_ with full-featured distros. That is the point, stupid man. You are supposed to bitch staying on subject, not about things pulled out of your ass. Reading comprehension, for God sake.
"... Guess what? Windows lets you install 3rd party software that you download from a website..." Hey, and what difference is there with, say, ubuntu? Ubuntu let's you click a .deb file from some website and offers you to install it. Ok, let's talk nonsense then! I say Windows XP doesn't let you use your keyboard, and kills kitten, too.
"If you had actually designed your system properly, I'd install once, like 4 years ago, and then I'd never care again." And a first-class deluxe edition stupid person you are. That is exactly what happens when you install things from the repositories. The OS informs you about new versions, and if you choose to, it downloads and updates the apps. Even the entire distro.
The problem with linux is that there are too many different distros and the LSB isn't big enough to standardize many components to be as featureful as Windows XP. If, once again, Ubuntu where the all-dominant distro, 3rd-party software developers would only need to release ubuntu-compatible .deb files, and problem solved.
Then, if you couldn't find an 'ubuntu version' of your desired application, that would mean that the application you want to install ISN'T AVAILABLE YET. It happens with Windows XP sometimes. There is a 'linux' version, but there isn't a Windows port yet. Shit happens.
But no! That is exceptionally difficult for the piece of shit you have for a brain to understand. Of course Linux is full of defects, but you are just like the retard that challenged you.
C'mon, I expected better from a true linux hater. Maybe you secretly are a linux bitch.
.troll
· 1 year ago
See this? That's what your post makes us think about you.
Utter bollocks.
Enrique
· 1 year ago
Maybe if you could hurt yourself and _think_ of some real reasons I could find the connection between the URL and your reply.
No need to be an Einstein to tell how stupid you are.
.troll
· 1 year ago
No need to be an Einstein to tell how stupid you are. Good job too, you're no Einstein.
It's obvious, your post was a pile of pretentious bollocks, it was so bad that if you said it in the street some random woman might well appear and slap you one for being such an utter cunt.
So what you say is that Linux is worse because you, by accident, can only delete your home directory and not /usr/lib.
You were completely oblivious to LH's sarcasm here. He's saying it doesn't matter if you can only delete your home directory, as that's still far more catastrophic than deleting your entire installation. Also the average person will just re-install the entire machine to fix the issue.
What are you trying to bitch about here? Tar and bzip... guess what? You can also use them in Windows if you install 3rd party apps... so Windows must be crap too. Stupid you are. You totally missed the point, which was that those 'crapware' come _PREINSTALLED_ with full-featured distros. That is the point, stupid man.
No it's you that's completely missed the point ,'stupid man.' Aaron thePonce was harping on about having three-four different zip utilities and that making Linux fucking great. LH basically said: 'so -- the fuck -- what? Windows has zip.'
And a first-class deluxe edition stupid person you are. That is exactly what happens when you install things from the repositories.
What?! Am just shaking my head here, you've completely mis-understood what LH is saying. He's saying you should be able to install a distro and not have to dist-updgrade it for at least four years.
Please, don't bother replying, you seriously miss the points. Typical fucking Freetard.
julian67
· 1 year ago
If you don't make back ups then having your user account compromised is certainly a disaster, as is HDD failure or a power surge/failure which corrupts the journal or damages the physical disk. Same on any OS. Back up or one day you are screwed. But compromising a regular nix user account is not typically very valuable for an attacker except as a means to gain more time to attack the root account (if one exists, i.e. not the Ubuntu sudo model which is strictly for the brave and optimistic imo) . While anything's possible generally people running Mac or Linux are not running with root accounts and generally people running Windows pre-Vista are (excepting the corporate world where trained people with brains make absolutely sure the user has no privileges). Actually the typical self certificated "Power User", aka fucking idiot, is running as admin in Vista too and totally negating the most positive change MS has made to their consumer OS.
The difference is important because a compromised user account on a unix type install hasn't given the attacker the chance to modify any binaries, install any software or even cover their tracks. It's pretty fucking obvious if something's up unless the attacker restricts themselves to simply viewing data but even someone with no suspicions might notice an extra VT being used or file access times that don't make sense. If you have a back up of your /home/user then you simply need to change your user name and password and copy from back up and change ownership to the new account. A similar compromise on a typical XP user results in a lot more work because almost certainly the OS is rooted, binaries modified, new binaries and scripts installed, logs altered and so on. You'd feel pretty nervous about the back up as well.
Assuming you keep your system patched then the most likely way to own someone's account in linux is by social engineering or something like attacking a poorly set up ssh server that allows password authentication (and before anyone bitches again about servers/desktops, having an ssh server running is perfectly normal for secure remote access to desktops).
The typical way to own a Windows machine....well there's quite a choice. And there are so many systems out there where maybe the OS is patched and up to date but the applications aren't, which makes it very easy for someone to jump straight to owning the entire OS by way of vulnerable applications even if the user is running without privileges. For all the arguments about .exe installers vs package management for convenience, it's package management which makes an average Linux based OS more secure than an average Windows OS. btw on XP I use Secunia PSI to monitor for known vulnerable versions of applications because otherwise it's very hard to keep track of it and much too easy to miss something. In Debian I don't have to think about it, it's automatic. Another factor on the social/human side is that unix like systems are actually convenient to use as a restricted user, all the applications are written with that in mind and if you do need temporary root privilege that's also something convenient. But in XP/2000 the temptation is always to run as admin because there are so many applications which require admin privilege to either run or to save settings, and runas is hardly convenient and doesn't work for a lot of stuff. On XP I run as restricted user and I *know* why many people don't.
I think the difference between getting owned on unix type systems and on Windows is that unless you run nix unpatched and/or are catastrophically stupid or careless then someone, an actual human, is going to have to actually work at it to own you. On Windows any one of hundreds of automated tools can do it with no effort from anyone and add you to their happy botnet.
Personally whatever system I was running if my account got owned I'd assume the entire OS was owned too, so the point is a little academic for a home user. For an administrator or for people who share computers using different accounts it's more relevant.
Btw last time I looked at Ubuntu any user could see the contents of any other user's home. How fucked up is that? I followed this up at the numbnuts forums and launchpad and apparently it's to make it easier to share stuff for people too fucked in the head to do it properly.
dist-upgrades etc: What's perceived to be wrong with dist upgrading? Do people running XP not notice those humungous service packs and update roll ups that arrive periodically? Something like SP2 or SP3 is pretty much the equivalent. SP2 certainly brought huge changes and a new kernel, a new set of default settings and so on. SP3 I'm not sure was a new kernel or not but it wasn't a small change on my PC, after completion it left behind several GB of unpacked updates it had used. It took plenty of time and bandwidth as well. Looking at XP it's been 4 distinct releases: XP, XP SP1, XP SP2 and XP SP3. This is over a period of 7 years. To compare that with Debian stable, if you installed in 2001 you would be on...can you guess? yup your 3rd dist upgrade, 4th version since 2001, same as XP. If you'd installed Slackware you could still be getting security patches for the exact same version installed in 2001 (though why anyone would want to do this outside a server or a console based system I'm not sure). Debian is still supporting Sarge a year after the release of Etch, so in fact you even have declined to move to the current stable version and still be supported.
Of course there are other factors but I think this artificial requirement that an OS should be static for 4 years is unrealistic and plain odd. MS won't supply you with patches unless you install the service packs, and why should they? The situation varies a lot between distros but you should realistically expect to be able to run most distro's stable version for 3 years minimum, much less with some and much longer with others. If stuff like this is important it makes sense to check distro policy when choosing what to use.
Stallmanix
· 1 year ago
thats not important what if someone take your data stored in your home dir? personal information and all that. windows and linux have the same problem
julian67
· 1 year ago
You should use encrypted containers, whatever the OS, for private or sensitive data. It's very easy to do.
.troll
· 1 year ago
thats not important
Yes it is. An attacker could, instead of destroying the home directory, subvert the installation, they could do far more damage: infect other users files, setup root services to pump out spam from the moment the machine hits networked mode, infect system files making it harder to dis-infect the machine. Julian does have a point here.
what if someone take your data stored in your home dir?
Please tell me how this is a relevant counter-point to anything Julian has said?
.troll
· 1 year ago
Thanks for the above comment, I think. Do note that I disagree with LH about the home directory vs. root issue too (do a search for my earlier comments in this thread, if you need proof) as being confined to a single user's home account means an attacker can't get into the home directories of any other users on the same machine.
I was attacking the way the op just completely mis-understood what the blog post meant, and acted like an arrogant twunt into the bargain.
Btw last time I looked at Ubuntu any user could see the contents of any other user's home. How fucked up is that?
Yeah, I noticed that. It's weird. I'd be interested to know if that's possible on Windows Vista with a normal -- not Admin -- account.
dist-upgrades etc: What's perceived to be wrong with dist upgrading?
Agreed. Personally I just think this a stupid thing to argue about, Linux and Windows updates aren't even comparable. Remember, acting like a schoolboy here a little: Aaron thePonce started it! :)
rockmelinuxdamus
· 1 year ago
It is exactly this type of disingenuous rationalization that fuels the LH blog.
There is an overwhelming probability that you could have installed XP 7 years ago and applied all updates and service packs and still be running fine today. You firstly make the laughable decision to compare this with debian stable where the stable branch is completely outdated for normal desktop use. And you ignore the fact that there is an overwhelming probability that had you dist upgraded in place for the past 7 years you wouldn't have a working system today.
Then you have to play semantics with the word static to try and make a point. XP is static in that you can upgrade it in place. Linux is not static in that you are very very lucky if one updgrade in place works let alone a string of 7 years worth of updates.
julian67
· 1 year ago
I compared it with Debian because that's what I'm familiar with. If the comparison had been with Debian Testing instead of Stable it would be the same scenario, but Testing is usually very up to date and despite the name is more stable than most OS.
As someone who moved from 98 to XP in 2002 I don't agree that "There is an overwhelming probability that you could have installed XP 7 years ago and applied all updates and service packs and still be running fine today". Before SP2 XP was outrageously insecure, susceptible to incredibly damaging worms such as sasser and blaster. Corporate firewalls and locked down computers adminstered via domain controllers were no defense. Even a fully patched system could be taken down easily. IE was so insecure that the US govt recommended people not to use it. It was a truly terrible OS in terms of stability and security. Probably the only surviving part of XP today is the familiar interface. *Everything* else important has been fundamentally reworked. The default services are different, the firewall is different, the kernel is different, the web browser is different, there is DEP, WGA etc. These are not small differences accumulated through incremental change, they are fundamental.
I can clearly remember installing XP (purchased boxed original upgrade edition, no service pack) with my PC connected to a cable modem and it being taken down as soon as the network was up, I didn't even finish the install. That didn't change until SP2 arrived.
As for updating, it seems memories are short. Each service pack causes huge problems for many people, not everyone but a lot. The biggest change was moving from SP1 to SP2, essentially a new version of Windows in all but name. I'm not sure it would have been completely impossible to install XP in 2001 and smoothly upgrade to SP3 today but it's extremely unlikely. Plenty of people break either their OS or their applications along the way. Probably fewer of them would get into trouble if they rtfm to find out what is known to get broken before applying an update or service pack but that's people for you. SP2 broke *a lot* of stuff.
Some people have similar troubles dist upgrading a distro as applying a service pack, plenty don't. It's fairly analagous. The less dumb crap you do and the better you understand what you're doing the greater the chance of success but nothing guaranteed. In Windows I found the upgrade from SP2 to SP3 mostly trouble free. But I remember going from XP to SP1 and then to SP2 was not so smooth and both times I slipstreamed the changes to make a new install CD and used that in the end to make clean installs. With distros I went through dist upgrading several versions of Xubuntu with only minor issues (stopped using it because I didn't like 7.10 and realised I might as well use the real thing, Debian) and I've gone from Debian Stable to Testing with the only issue being reconfiguring the touchpad on my laptop.
My laptop with XP got trojaned a few months ago....my fault entirely :-) but that's another story.... so as it's legal and licensed I decided to re-install from restore CDs which are SP1 and I then took it through SP2 and to SP3. It all worked out fine in the end but SP1 to SP2 breaks plenty of stuff with the update mechanism advising uninstalling various things before proceeding. It's worth bearing in mind it can't catch everything, especially custom applications, unknown hardware drivers and lesser known 3rd party applications. This was on a basic OEM system. On a typical install with lots of 3rd party stuff it gets more exciting. SP2 to SP3 was much smoother.
I'm not sure why you think the word static is a semantic trick, the meaning is clear, but whatever makes you happy. I'm impressed by any SoHo desktop user who installed *any* OS 7 years ago and has kept it patched and upgraded all along the way until now. Perhaps someone knows his name and address?
rockmelinuxdamus
· 1 year ago
Again you are the fuel for this blog. You comparing updating windows xp and a linux distro as though they were equal and analogous is why people hate lusers.
Thanks for playing.
julian67
· 1 year ago
Errr... let's see. Both desktop OS, both can use automated update and upgrade mechanisms. The updaters can install anything from patches to a new kernel. Can be done automatically or use can choose to reject certain updates.
You're an idiot.
rockmelinuxdamus
· 1 year ago
Ummmmm...one works for years at a time and the other doesn't. Hence they are not equal.
Thanks for playing luser.
julian67
· 1 year ago
Thanks for the "Works For Me"(™) reply :-)
When I used my XP upgrade CD to upgrade 98 to XP it "Just Didn't Work"(™) so I used the clean install method (where the original 98 CD is required to verify the notional upgrade). When I went from XP to XP SP1 it required a clean install, the in situ upgrade was unsatisfactory. Same with SP1 to SP2. But XP SP2 to SP3 did work absolutely fine. YMMV. Perhaps you can show us your system logs and demonstrate how you seamlessly progressed from XP thru SP1, SP2 to SP3? Can anyone?
rockmelinuxdamus
· 1 year ago
No need for that. Just ask the hundreds of millions of computer users who are still running the same xp install that they were 4 years ago. Then we can compare that with how many people have succesfully dist upgraded from ubuntu 5 to ubuntu 8. Or from fedora 6 to 9. Or suse 9 to 11.
Thanks for playing luuuuser.
julian67
· 1 year ago
"Just ask the hundreds of millions of computer users....."
Oh dear, a moron escaped from the playground.
I'm asking for a single set of logs.
You want a survey of millions of hypothetical people.
You're a fucking idiot.
rockmelinuxdamus
· 1 year ago
Your like a wind-up toy. I wind you up by telling the truth. You proceed to stammer and flail about avoiding it.
Kind of fun.
Thanks for playing luser.
julian67
· 1 year ago
You've made an unsupported assertion that a person could install XP 7 years ago, go through the whole upgrade process to SP3 and still be running the same system now. But you can't offer one single example, and no one else can either.
Let's see something more than hollow assertions.
You can't show such a simple thing, and apparently nobody else can either, because clearly you haven't managed to do it.
You're an idiot.
rockmelinuxdamus
· 1 year ago
I know three people in my family that have xp machines ranging in age between 4 and 6 years with the original install on them. My machine is only a l year old install because I built a new one but my previous machine had a 4 year old install on it.
You have made the idiotic assertion that a linux dist upgrade is equal to that. It is that idiocy that makes people hate lusers.
There ya go I've turned your little winder. Now you avoid the truth.
As always Thanks for playing luser.
julian67
· 1 year ago
What makes you think the name "dist upgrade" makes the process of upgrading the OS fundamentally different to doing the same thing in another OS?
The process checks current install, fetches updates and additions as appropriate, anything from a small patch to a new kernel, and installs and configures them. Which part of that is beyond your understanding? The only big difference in doing this in Windows is that you also go through a validation process (WGA) and only the OS and MS utilities and signed drivers are updated. With a distro applications are also updated.
Would you care to enlighten us on what else you think is going on? Voodoo magic? You you are as stupid as they come.
It's terrifically exciting to hear you that there are more people like you and that their OS has survived 4 years handling by inbred morons. But please show us all the person who installed 7 years ago and upgraded all the way through the service packs without serious problem (or at all). That's what you claimed and what I asked you to show.
I know why you can't offer a real example, and I know why you don't understand a simple direct question.
It's because you're a fucking idiot.
rockmelinuxdamus
· 1 year ago
The point is a linux dist upgrade is overwhelmingly unrealiable from one release to the next. Let alone for years worth of them.
Meanwhile xp users generally are fully up to date for many years without a fresh install.
Winding...winding....winding...wound. There ya go now avoid.
Thanks for playing luser.
julian67
· 1 year ago
Some distro's upgrades are unreliable, some aren't. Some distro's are rolling releases so you never dist upgrade but are always up to date. Other distros like opensuse don't even officially support dist upgrades, though it is possible. People run Slackware and Debian and Red Hat for years upgrading.
You seem to know nothing about it.
Let me guess your total experience amounts to three weeks with Ubuntu, or maybe nothing at all.
To say that XP users generally don't reinstall is plain stupid. It would be a less stupid thing to say if a) it was true, and b) it was anything more than another of your loudmouth assertions, unsubstantiated and with no credibility.
Even if someone has the sense not to use their XP install as an install/uninstall fest and it upgrades cleanly there are also all the 3rd party applications. Run something like Secunia PSI, you might get a surprise.
You're a moron.
rockmelinuxdamus
· 1 year ago
Rolling distros are outside of normal person usage. But then you are avoiding the issue that you can't dist upgrade reliably for the amount of time you can update xp.
Keep avoiding.
Thanks for playing luser.
.troll
· 1 year ago
False premise followed by ad hominem.
You fail it.
julian67
· 1 year ago
No, I have addressed that several times, but you choose to ignore it.
*You* can't manage it, but plenty of other people *can* and *do*.
Why can't you manage it?
Because you're a fucking idiot.
rockmelinuxdamus
· 1 year ago
No, I have addressed that several times, but you choose to ignore it.
No you haven't addressed it.
Windows xp can be updated for years without a reinstall. Linux distros are lucky to make one dist upgrade in tact let alone many years worth of them.
How many people have succesfully updated in place from ubuntu 5-8 or suse 9-11 or fedora 6-9 without reinstalling again? That was the whole point of the static issue.
Ok my little wind up toy. I've turned the winder again. Now you stammer and flail avoiding the truth until it runs out again.
Thanks for playing luser.
Enrique
· 1 year ago
"It's obvious, your post was a pile of pretentious bollocks, it was so bad that if you said it in the street some random woman might well appear and slap you one for being such an utter cunt." You still don't say why. That's bollocks.
"You were completely oblivious to LH's sarcasm here. He's saying it doesn't matter if you can only delete your home directory, as that's still far more catastrophic than deleting your entire installation. Also the average person will just re-install the entire machine to fix the issue." And how is re-installing the entire machine going to fix the issue? The problem here is lack of backup of personal files. That happens in any OS. It has nothing to do with linux being a good or bad OS. The reasoning of a stupid person. Guess what? Just because it is wrapped in sarcasm doesn't make it any less stupid. He may have a point 'defending' windows xp on that, but it doesn't give you any standing ground to conclude that linux sucks because of that. He 'attacks' Aaron thePonce but shows the same stupidity.
And no, deleting your home directory is not far more catastrophic than deleting your entire installation. If you deleted just your home directory there is no fix in reinstalling the whole OS. It is very stupid to do that. What good would it do? Very stupid of you. Why don't go one step further and buy a whole new computer in that case? That would be just a little more stupid.
"No it's you that's completely missed the point ,'stupid man.' Aaron thePonce was harping on about having three-four different zip utilities and that making Linux fucking great. LH basically said: 'so -- the fuck -- what? Windows has zip.'" Hey, I also think Aaron's reasoning was far from stellar. But LH didn't just say "nah, you are wrong. Windows doesn't suck on that. It has built-in zip." He also said "Linux sucks because you can use tar and bzip", which are, in his divine opinion, a lesser compression 'format' because its designers, oh my god, designed it taking separation of concerns into account. And that is what makes LH argumentation a stupid one. Linux isn't better because of that, but isn't worse either.
"What?! Am just shaking my head here, you've completely mis-understood what LH is saying. He's saying you should be able to install a distro and not have to dist-updgrade it for at least four years." And what forces him to dist-upgrade? You can install a distro and not dist-upgrade it, all the same as installing win98 and not having to upgrade it to winxp. Hey, ubuntu is buggy, just the same as winxp. 30 minutes of updates after a fresh install... What is he trying to say here? This is what LH wrote:
"If you had actually designed your system properly, I'd install once, like 4 years ago, and then I'd never care again."
And it is I that shake my head. That is about the only thing 'linux' did perceiveably better than windows, and LH stupidly chooses to go there. Perhaps he really doesn't understand what LTS means, and perhaps he also forgets that these OS don't play by the same rules because to 'dist-upgrade' winxp you have to pay for the new version, so point taken, it isn't nice to be dist-upgrading every 6 months. But hey, for 'linux' it isn't a big of an event to dist-upgrade, so why refrain from upgrading to the latest versions of packages, with fixes, new features, old bugs squashed and the likes? It doesn't make sense to bitch about a product that is released more often than another if: 1. nobody forces you to upgrade 2. the fucking thing is free so it is not the same as, say, shelling 100USD each time.
With most linux distros you even know exactly when the next spin is going to be released. That you cannot have with windows, understandably. And I don't know if that makes Windows suck, but certainly is an area where Linux does better. You would be stupid if you tried to make Windows look as the winner on that one.
"Please, don't bother replying, you seriously miss the points. Typical fucking Freetard." Oh, so I shouldn't bother just because you said so. Who do you think you are? You are no different than the typical fucking freetards.
.troll
· 1 year ago
Just one more thing: try reading some of Julian67's rebuttals, he manages to present an alternative opinion without looking like a pompous Llama's cleft, typing with his bowtie on.
Enrique
· 1 year ago
But you, again, failed to give one reason to calling me a pompous Llama's cleft. You didn't list anything. You just name-called me, and took sides with LH, as if you were his girlfriend.
Pompous me? It is not I who says "Look at this URL, that is what _we_ think of you blablabla". Who we? I repeat, who do you think you are? You won't look any more adult by just calling me names.
From some of your posts I think maybe you have some knowledge of linux and other IT topics, but then when you just act like a moron and try to insult me (which is fine) without coming with any reasoning (which is not) you only make me think (oh, I can act as a moron too, and say... you only make us think) that you are a complete idiot.
.troll
· 1 year ago
I gave you a list of reasons why several posts ago. Idiot.
John
· 1 year ago
And no, deleting your home directory is not far more catastrophic than deleting your entire installation. If you deleted just your home directory there is no fix in reinstalling the whole OS. It is very stupid to do that. What good would it do? Very stupid of you. Why don't go one step further and buy a whole new computer in that case? That would be just a little more stupid.
It's the DATA, you dumbfuck. Who gives a rat's ass about your Ubuntu system files or the crap in your /dev folder. That crap can be reinstalled from a Linux setup disc. BUT WHAT YOU CAN'T REPLACE is the fucking DATA, ass clown: The accounting data, the expense reports, the research papers, the email, the calendars, the spreadsheets, the digital photos. In other words, all of the STUFF that makes your computer USEFUL and valuable in the first place. A freshly-installed Linux box is USELESS until you start putting your DATA on it. Get the picture, douchebag? USER DATA is king. OS system files are crap that can be replaced. DATA can't. Word.
.troll
· 1 year ago
I already told you not to bother replying.
Oh, so I shouldn't bother just because you said so.
No. You should stop replying because I said so and because I listed a set of reasons why you were talking out of your arse. Yet here you go again embarrassing yourself.
Look it's not nice to do this to children, but please fuck off back to the kids table. The adults are trying to have a conversation.
Mehrdad
· 1 year ago
yeah, you don't have to shell out 100USD, you'll lose much more for the time you wasted
All Comments
Comparing the install media of a OS that is 7 years old versus one that's 2 months is retarded, especially when we see that Ubuntu ain't much better on it itself.
Today, I found myself featured on the Linux Haters Blog. I’ve heard of this blog before, but didn’t give it much thought, as most of the posts coming from the author are nothing more than Microsoft fan-boy fanaticism. It’s hard to take any of the posts seriously. After reading his post regarding a couple of mine, I just thought to myself, “Oh, brother. Is this guy for real, or is he all about the press, leading many, many readers on?”. I spent some time on the blog, digging through posts and comments, and I could find nothing intellectual stimulating conversation above “Linux SUX, Windows RULES!”. So, this post is challenge the author to produce something intellectual that will actually show some logic behind his posts (and maybe the commentators behind their comments).
Sorry Aaron dude, but it did make me chuckle a bit. It's not all "Linux SUX, Windows RULES!" (although some commenters are like that....) Some good points have been brought up by LH regarding Linux's shortcomings on the desktop, and if Linux fixed the problems mentioned here, it would be a stellar operating system.
Unfortunately, the chances of that happening don't look too good right now...
So how exactly is this blog different from any pro-Linux zealot's blog? It's just on the opposite side of the coin.
Apparently, lusers can dish it out, but they can't take it.
No scripting? LOL. Yeah, cscript + wscript hosts (vbscript + jscript) and now PowerShell, plus, you can still install anything else you want for that purpose.
Same story for not knowing about VNC.
Seriously, I wouldn't hire this guy at minimum wage as an admin.
Let me use what ever system i want. If you like Windows then use it. If linux is too complex for you then don't use it. If you find a bug then fix it (if you are able to) or let somebody of the developers know about it. But don't use linux the wrong way and then blame it for your faults.
"RIS, WDS, sysprep + ghost or true image" ...no, sorry. No such packages here. Hey, we are talking about linux. So let us do it right. What about booting our systems over the network and mounting all the needed filesystems over the network too? No need for hard drives in the client.
Windows Scripting. ROFL. Yes, sure it is there. Let us compare checking for open files in our shared folders.
unixish way: $ lsof | grep /path/to/my/shared/files
This is called KISS principle. One command, one thing,...
And now the windowish scripting version:
Set oNT = GetObject("WinNT://" &SERVER & "/LanManServer")
Set wso = CreateObject("WScript.Shell")
CHECKOPEN=D:\path\to\my\shared\files
For Each oRes In oNT.Resources
if(InStr(CStr(oRes.Path),CHECKOPEN,1))then
WScript.Echo CStr(oRes.Path)
end if
Next
I call this one "i've just triggered a bug" version. The last returned Object is not an Object. *CONFUSED* What's wrong here. It's the way MSDN told me to do?
PowerShell? And again Power*. Argh. I hate that.
PowerShell is the new shell that will not run an all Windows versions. At least on Windows 2008 Server without GUI there is NO WAY to install it! Correct me if i'm wrong.
It's all Windows isn't it? Sorry, but my life is to short to write 10+ scripts for one single problem.
The geeks say 'HEY, that's half the fun!'
but I have a girl, and things to get done,
the Linux OS SUCKS!"
-TDT&B
As to the comment below about it taking 7 years to get XP right. Durrr? Damn me, I guess I should not have adopted it after SP1. I didn't realize how unusable it was. Why did I wait for SP1? Because I had a perfectly fine win2k install that I didn't feel like blowing away until I actually needed a feature in XP (and that was the shadow copy service that makes backups so much nicer to run).
Damn me, I guess that makes me another Windows Fanboy(tm). Didn't know I was a fan of anything, but I guess if sitting down at a PC and using it without a care in the world makes me a fanboy, then I guess I'm guilty.
Yep, old hand at ghost and acronis (and yes, I do know that Acronis is Linux-based. So what? it's not a desktop OS is it now). I update my images maybe once a year, mainly because of changes to third party apps. Rolling new patches into the image is secondary. nLite is nice, and vLite is also nice. I use nLite mainly to make an unattended install image and to lock-down/remove things I don't want the kiddies getting into. Group Policy applied through Active Directory does the rest seamlessly.
Oh, and this wonderful Firefox browser? Guess what? I'm going to have to axe it this fall because there does not seem to be a workable way to lock down the proxy settings. I've used the front motion edition, and the firefox.adm GPO template, and it just does not effing work. So we're back to IE, which I can bend to my will completely via group policy.
And now for users. Seems to me when I create a new user through the Users And Groups applet, it sets them up in the "users" group and NOT the Administrators group. Imagine that?
Of course we don't set up users that way with AD.
No OS is ready right out of the box. ALL of them need to be tuned for the environment they run in. The argument of who bundles the most crapware is spurious at best. On Windows PCs it's called "bloat" and on Linux distros it's called we-have-more-stuff-on-our-CD-nyaa-nyaaa.
Microsoft is selling an Operating System. You know: that thing that sits between your I/O devices and your hardware upon which applications run? They aren't marketing Windows as your One Stop Put In A Disk PC Nirvana Onna Bun. I would rather have that then an OS that installs 3 different word processors, 5 different text editors, etc, by default and claim it's convenience. It's nothing but bloat.
I turn off the update notifier in most of the Linux installs I do because I'm sick of it telling me that there are updates for 200 odd languages I do not speak. Windows update provides a mechanism where at least I can tell it to never again show certain updates, whether it's at the website or through automatic updates.
As for RDP. I use RDP and VNC both. Visual quality of VNC sucks mightily, as does the response time. RDP is the superior experience. When I remote into a system I *don't* want the user interacting with it. If I do, then I suffer to use VNC.
Sorry for the rant. I'm just sick of these stupid comparisons. With Windows we have a mature and stable system. Vista got problems? OMG then stay with XP for a few years until you're satisfied! It's not like one new OS instantly obsoletes the old one. We used Win2k until '95 or so just because it did what was needed of it. We still have the odd 98 client around. Linux = moving target. You're always in the Early Adopter camp with desktop Linux, beta testing someone elses latest attempt at "teh awesome"
Comparing one with the other is a stretch at best on home desktops, but in a multiuser client/server network what exactly can you possibly compare favorably with 2k2 server and Active Directory that isn't another proprietary solution like Novell?
My XP system hasn't been reinstalled in 6 years !
Windows XP used to get so bogged down, it was a yearly ritual for me and others to have to reinstall once a year.
Windows XP used to get so bogged down, it was a yearly ritual for me and others to have to reinstall once a year.
Or, maybe, just maybe, you're simply a dumbfuck who doesn't know how to administer a Windows box.
Fortunately those of us who are capable of thinking for ourselves, and indeed performing some basic troubleshooting, have the luxury of deciding which turd operating system we wish to use. I have never... NEVER gotten more than three years out of any Windows operating system that wasn't being used only for word processing. In fact I have to re-install my parents system for them about every two years and they're the most boring people ever.
It's not that I couldn't fix Windows when it became too crapped up, it's just that it was easier to re-install the whole fucking thing in an hour than to spend hours walking though the fucking registry or searching for whatever fucking DLL got hosed by the latest hang or windows update. Oh and I particularly loved the way Windows used to blame me when it shit itself and I had to power-cycle it.
So I switched to Linux and things are better. Sure it (Ubuntu) shits itself occasionally and sure I have never EVER had a successful upgrade which still pisses me off to no end. However even if the absolute worst happens I can drop in the install CD and reboot so that I can browse the net for support or access a filesystem. If I need a special utility for whatever I'm fixing I type "sudo apt-get install dcfldd" (or whatever). Even better, if the system is well and truly hosed I can reinstall without backing up all my data again - my home partition is mounted on a separate drive and Linux doesn't force me to jump through hoops to do so.
Yeah I've given up PC games but I have the 360 for that. I can't run Office 2007 (which I hate as much as OO, Office 2K3, WP, etc) and I don't need Photoshop. The beauty is that I didn't pay a fucking cent for this piece of shit. So when Ubuntu craps itself and leaves me staring at a hung X session where the cursor stupidly moves around but I can't interact with the system or switch to another virtual terminal, I'm not adding insult to injury by realizing that I was stupid enough to pay someone for this shit. I can have a complete system with all the equivalent functionality of a windows box, with less aggravation and I can save myself $500+.
If it doesn't work for you that's fine, but FFS stop bitching about it. You didn't pay a fucking cent for it and if you did , well stupid on you.
But hey, if your time is worth nothing then sure, Linux is cheaper.
I spend at most, the same amount of time maintaining my Linux boxes as I did with my Windows systems and probably spend less time because I find that I can do a lot of things more quickly (ex software installation) under Linux. Even if worst comes to worst, I can completely rebuild my system, usually to the latest release with almost every package, except for any that have been deprecated or that might have stupid dependencies, in 30 - 40 minutes with the use of a relatively dumb script.
Yeah for the average user who wants to do what I do with my system Linux probably isn't for them, mind you the *average* user probably isn't using their system for the same things I am.
Anyways, my time is what it is. If I have nothing better to do then I don't mind screwing around with any system be it Linux, Mac or Windows. Linux works for me most of the time and when it doesn't I just rationalize that I didn't fork out any cash for it and if I was still running MS products I would probably be fucking around with them all the same but for different problems. I don't administer large numbers of systems which is probably just as well since Bozo-the-Wonder-Fuck below this post would probably juicing all over himself at the thought of imparting his vast knowledge to someone...
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=847484
It's impossible to install Firefox 3 on an OS released 2 years ago. I've tried it myself on a VM, the binary downloaded from Mozilla website asks for GTK 2.10. Give it up for the awesomeness of Linux package management. Weeeee.
I can download Firefox 3 today and it will work without a hitch on XP, an OS released almost 7 years ago. That, my friend, is a software platform. Try the same on any Linux distribution older than 2 years? 3 years? and tell me what happens.
Upgrading Debian woody (Version 3) to etch (Version 4) took me the following commands.
perl -pi -e "s/woody/etch/g" /etc/apt/sources.list
apt-get update
apt-get dist-upgrade
reboot
After 15 minutes and a downtime of about 30 seconds there it was. Guess what. All applications working like before the upgrade.
Tell us something about your upgrade steps from Windows 2000 to XP. Windows is the better and easier system, isn't it? ;-)
This PC is running 24/7, and I am actively using it at least 16-18 hours a day. I only reboot it about every 4-5 days. I have been using it as my main PC and dev box, simultaniously running a web server on it, and even for software testing for writing reviews. This is brutal stuff that most people do not use their computer for. I really "abuse" this baby.
But I also take good care of it. It hasn't needed a reinstall in over 4 years. In fact it runs better today than it did 4 years ago.
And we all know that XP is so much better than WinME. So if you are reinstalling XP yearly, something is seriously wrong, and I wouldn't say it was the OS's fault.
If I can make a single install of WinME run well with heavy "abusive" use for over 4 years, then XP should be able to run at least 8 years without a reinstall, providing your hardware doesn't quit on you, first.
my new laptop had vista preinstalled and ii added ubuntu(just for a spin, i usually prefer liveCDs for linux). 3 months later vista still works (albeit i get a clumsy feeling OS) ubuntu had 3(!) clean installs and the third has gone utterly nuts (NUTS i tell you).
pfff i miss XP
I have a virtual windows installation for some programs that don't run in linux and some system updates cause it to endlessly loop installing them when I shut down. This means that after applying some windows updates I'm unable to shut down the emulator cleanly. Neat.
i format XP every 2-3 months due to bir-rot-riot (hey users install stuff you know) but hardy madde a shame out of itself it does not even show shutdown reboot on the menu anymore, i have to go to a terminal and sudo reboot/powerof
Even after being a Luser, I must say it was a challenge taken and squashed accordingly. Unfortunately I will question the quality or source of the challenge but it WAS A CHALLENGE indeed! :)
A guy claiming to be sysadmin but not knowing about the automated windows install (I am not a sysadmin but even I have seen it's mentions). Unfortunately the ones that can provide you with quality challenge are busy doing real work and not having time to end up here.
I do strongly believe in the value proposition offered by FOSS and that works for me quite well!!! I don't need to prove that or refute you, but in a overall sense I do see the points you make and agree to many parts of it.
Ofcourse the style/presentation you have got is totally offensive (and in its mostly foul language) is not required. But this it your blog and you make the choices.
Anyway, me Luser saying bravo to you..
Ok, so that you don't get the wrong idea, not all of your rebuttuls are substantial.
Come'n - you sure you didn't had to reinstall XP in 3 yrs just to refresh it and get the performance back.
It's strange that in my circle of wusers they call it a ageing affect where you need to periodically make clean install to get the performance back or else windows ages and becomes slow.
hmmmmmm.....
Sure, a server setup can run for years and years, but that's not because it's Linux, it's because it's a SERVER. You don't install random crap on it, you don't pollute the system. You set it up, and you let it run. And occasionally, you update it.
And guess what? The same works on Windows. At work we've got plenty of Windows servers that have run flawlessly for 4 years (Since they were bought). No "ageing effect" there.
The "ageing effect" comes from people installing crap that never gets properly removed. And Linux has the same problem. An everyday desktop Linux system belonging to an "average user", one where the user happily installs and removes software on a daily basis, certainly won't last for 3 or 4 years without any performance degradation either.
That said, I thought the scripting language rebuttal was a bit weak. True, scripting languages exist on Windows. But far from everything can be scripted. Very few Windows applications play nice with a command line interface. That's one of the (few?) genuine advantages Linux has.
You're right.
But, again, that's the problems with the few advantages of Linux, they can only be useful to the advanced user. To the average joe, they wouldn't know anything about it.
On OSX they seem to have a good balance with AppleScript. As scripting languages go, its one of the easiest to pick up, and most good Mac developers provide the abilities to use Script to access all kinds of functionality in their programs.
Don't forget the much maligned, old and kludgy (but continuously supported!) Batch language. This continues to be supported because it is useful and there's no point in breaking the enormous amount of .bat and .cmd files in the world just because the language isn't very pretty.
Yes, with Windows, MSFT historically optimized for the GUI. But huge swaths of the system are exposed to scripting through COM and WMI. Unfortunately, these are very programmer-ey interfaces and not interactive. However, the very nice solution that MSFT has released is PowerShell</>.
Much more obscure but useful for specialized groups is the reasonably serious command-line UNIX subsystem based on OpenBSD. On Windows 2000, XP and 2003 pre-R2 it is called SFU on later R2 and later it is SUA. In all cases uname reports it as Interix. It isn't perfect but contains other useful tidbits like support for mounting NFS shares through Explorer.
I am sure a savvy user can avaid that problem in either desktop, but we are talking in general, right!
But firstly - I don't see how calling you a "duck" can inherently imply that I am not one too.
I agree to what u said but with the notes that Linux based desktops has a lesser extent to that problem with support (direct/indirect) of many things like:
1) No central registry pollution (But thats not to say that a load of init.d daemons with its compartmentalized conf files wont age to die)
2) Directory permission / control puts a check around stomping all over the file system
lot more i can think of .. but thats not the point
I am a happy user of OpenSUSE/KDE, Ubuntu/GNOME and XP. I love all these platforms based on the tasks/need and in many one can not be painlessly substituted by the others.
Not going to technical reasons, just being an user, I face the ageing affect in windows a lot more than in Linux based desktops OSes. Where as my Linux boxes are a lot more "messy" boxes with constant playing with it where my XP box is a "Install/Configure Once" as I know my needs in that box and that is a pretty constant set for last many years. In fact its decreasing in size as my FOSS knowledge are getting better over years.
So, there is it, an user experience, no forensic, but indeed a common one shared with many other similar user in my circle. Take it or leave it!
I've removed the Linux partitions from both of my machines.
I've used Linux for the past eight years, and it's always been a decade behind the rest of the software world - hopelessly outdated, marginally useful, and absolutely waste of time.
I think that even LH posts are just a regurgitation of usenet posts from 1983, when Stallman announced GNU, and was called an idiot.
I don't longer care.
Good night, and good fight.
Now excuse me while I suck off Richard Stallman, my personal hero and dominatrix.
Cheers!
RMS
1 - Everyone else is a system administrator (or wants to be)
2 - A desktop is just a little server that happens to be running a window manager
Most people just want their goddamn computers and applications to work. Thanks for making this point in a very entertaining way.
i think you're getting soft on us, LinuxHater. more troll posts and less well thought-out and well written posts or even HELPFUL, plz
"Since you have already addressed some differences between Linux and Windows, allow me to point out a difference between their users. Linux users spend most of their time using their computers, while Windows users spend most of their time and money trying to make their computers usable."
on another topic, this disqus thing is quite dumb when it never crops any of the posts after making the page bloody long.
Alert! Previously mentioned, in the luser alert post, blogging cum-bung Gene has written up a post (with another lame OGG video!) about installing third-party software being easy on Linux:
The problem with “third party” software is not Linux, it is the offerings from some software developers that do not take into account the fact there are non-technical users that want to install their stuff on Linux.
Utter arse.
At least "tard-con" is funnier than fucking "Wait for the popping noise".
Wait for the popping noise????????? Who the fuck let these idiots in here?
Even their insults are as obtuse and broken as the freetard freedom software they use and whine about.
You know, I remember back when the lusers who used to post comments here were at least mildly entertaining. This new batch hurts my brain.
Honestly the biggest reason for this batch of comments being fucked up, beyond the usual, is that LH turned off the fucking threading. This was after everyone had been replying to each other for several days, so it makes about as much sense as a sea lion trying to rape a penguin.
Honestly the biggest reason for this batch of comments being fucked up, beyond the usual, is that LH turned off the fucking threading. This was after everyone had been replying to each other for several days, so it makes about as much sense as a sea lion trying to rape a penguin.
I don't think the disqus guys really thought this through. Flattening threaded comments and sorting them by timestamp is a completely moronic feature to support. Sure, it was a mistake for LH to use it, but such a stupid feature shouldn't even be an option. The whole thread is now broken, and somehow makes even less sense than when it was threaded. Strangely appropriate though, because this is a Linux Hating blog, and this is the kind of feature you can expect from your average piece of linux software - programmer implements a useless, moronic option, because he can't be bothered implementing the option the users actually need.
A commenting system like the one on digg should be doable.
About the sea lion with the penguin - I don't know what the fuck to say to that. I was thinking of using it somehow to make fun of lusers / rms, but you know, wouldn't be fair to the penguin.
From here:
Linux Haters are folk that, for some reason or another, decide “I Hate Linux and You Should Too!”. Most of the time they advocate for Microsoft and its’ products, but not always. In any case, these folk tend to promulgate specific myths about Linux. One of these myths is that software is hard to install on Linux.
What a load of fucking horseshit. The fucking 'tard completely forgets third-party software or updates, and just creates a shit OGG video of installing Abhiword from the package manager. Then, because he's using Fluxbox, he has to run a line in the terminal to update the menus. That's fine, but it's not exactly great advertising is it!
Oh, and of course, hating Linux has to be all about Microsoft doesn't it. It can't just be that Free software has some deficiencies.
Naturally this was posted on Groklaw's newspicks, home of PJ, the Shill Finder General. She posted a whole heap of bullshit about some poor bastard who was burned by Linux being shit.
"From a general operating system perspective - there's still a lot of packages to download. That's not something you are going to see my mom use," Mann said bluntly. "Until it gets to the point where it's drop-dead simple or devices lock down functionality, you aren't going to see much uptake among consumers."
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/08/09/gos...
Perhaps he's speaking from experience as Walmart yanked his gOS computers earlier this year because they didn't sell well. Note how he didn't say that his customers should "RTFM, looser" or similar stuff that you find here. This is because he's not living in his parents' basement, he's running a business and has to make money and to do that he has to make Linux adapt to his customers needs because his customers don't have a week to mess around with xconf.org.
Keep going, great writing and to the point!
fail!
$ who loves mum
I love this command too. :-)
--
"Boy, anytime someone makes a cogent argument in favor of Linux all the trolls come out to feed. When one person makes a sensible argument and everyone else resorts to name calling and Linux sux comments it’s clear they are threatened. They must know deep down that Linux is more than a passing fad. They must know that windows and osx while convenient operating systems have serious flaws. They must know that that Linux model of freedom will slowly chisel away at the proprietary world. Freedom is a scary thing and many people react negatively in support of fascism even when freedom is probably better for them.
Is Linux perfect? No. But neither is windows or osx. Is one better than the other? Yes - but that depends on your needs. Saying Linux sux and pointing to what doesn’t work only proves that it doesn’t fit your needs or that you simply lack the patience to change or the ability. Linux is perfect for me because I can do everything I want to and it doesn’t cost me a dime. I flat out hate the windows and osx models. I can’t stand dealing with all the issues involved with running windows (like dealing with AV and all other malware issues and surfing the web to find a app every time I have something I want to do, and on and on), and I hate the osx model of the apple way or the highway. Others love that and more power to them. For me, however, they both suck, period.
Use what you want. Live and let live."
--
http://pthree.org/?p=647#comment-106157
Wow. They are really full of themselves. THEY are the bastion against fascism!?
"Use what you want. Live and let live" !?
Yeah, right! I will keep this in mind, when I see another "this site is blocked for IE" page.
At least you don't have to pay for Linux? So what? I spent $40 on Windows XP Pro and $20 on Microsoft Office Pro 2003 via a HUP / EPP. My college gives all CSCI students a copy of Windows Vista Business for free. Everything else on my computer was legally obtained at no cost (freeware). $60 dollars spent nearly six years ago is ass-wiping money.
I think most Linux supporters don't notice it themselves, but, their thinking is very clearly totalitarian.
You know how the German Democratic Republic, the communistic germany, that existed after world war 2 until the fall of the wall, called the Berlin wall? "antifaschistischer Schutzwall". That means "anti-fascistic protective barrier". So, in their lingo, the wall protected the "good" GDR against the evil capitalistic Germany, the federal republic of Germany.
But, clearly, the fascistic one was the GDR. This state had secret police, torture rooms etc.
The same thing with north and south korea basicaly. Have you seen North Korean propaganda?
That is exactly what George Orwell wrote about. And the "Linux community" has all the ingredients that would classify totalitarism:
Choice is good, UNTIL you chose something that the party doesn't approve! Choice is good if you chose firefox, if you chose IE, then you're a moron and you should be blocked and choice is bad!
Manipulation and lies. There are plenty of examples. And when caught, cry "FUD".
Presentation as victims: That one is important. The Linux community is never at fault you see: If they are caught, they always cry, that they are not at fault, MS is evil .. and so it goes. Totalitarian states present themselves as victims always too.
Manipulation of history. Plenty of examples here too. The most glaring is the myth, that Microsoft started a war against Linux almost since the dawn of time. That is a blatant lie. The community hated MS (and other companies) long before they in turn noticed Linux. You only need to look at linux newsgroups from 1995 and earlier.
The analogy might be godwinistic, but it is still basically correct.
Seriously, though, I can't understand someone who works so hard and doesn't get paid for it. One word comes to mind: chump.
"Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer.
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: "
Here is a link http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html. So you do not have to use a free (as in beer) search engine. :-)
"...doesn't get paid for it..." ROFL. So you really think that RedHat, Novell, IBM, Intel,... don't pay for the development of the linux kernel?
Yes, sure "cump" programmers made this possible http://www.top500.org/charts/list/31/os.
Read this please before you write such an crap. http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/lin...
I've been writing a document in OpenOffice for the past 12 hours. During a brake I put on some music in VLC (can't work with music). After 15 minutes I decided to close VLC, the window disappeared but the music continued. Not the first time, so I started htop to kill VLC. During the past few hours I noticed that my dual-core 2gig rammer had slowed down a bit. This is when I noticed ...
http://img391.imageshack.us/my.php?image=openof...
hmm, 6 identical processes with each 225Meg reserved. Surely, can't be - the splash-pipe at the end of the process probably refers to pipelined data, and htop is showing it as if the data is there 6 times. So I looked up splash-pipe:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Spec:F...
nothing about pipelining there, but it does state that the binary is forked. So my quest went on ...
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/oooqs...
well what do you know ... I'm running KUbuntu 8.04 with OO 2.4 and the bug has been around since Kubuntu 6.10
Or am I misinterpreting something here ?
No you're not missing anything. I don't know why Canonical bother with Kubuntu, it's a fucking embarrassment. They treat it like their unwanted love child, worse than that even: they're Daily Mail readers and the unwanted Kubuntu love-child turned out to be a gay, paedo-Muslim, who's actually from Poland and wanting to claim asylum in the UK. Note: not saying anything against gay, paedo-Muslim, asylum seekers from Poland, it's the Daily Mail readers who're the cunts in this analogy.
You've got a few options in my opinion:
1. Send a personal snail mail to Mark Shuttleworth, spelt using bits of cut-up newspapers, telling him what a cock he is.
2. Just switch to normal Ubuntu, gwith gall gthat Gnome ggoodness.
3. Switch to another distro that supports KDE better.
4. Send Mark Shuttleworth 2,000 CDs with Kubuntu burned onto them. Put a label on each one reading: 'Fucking Useless'. Possibly include the bug id's that make it fucking useless to really drive your point home.
5. Put up with the bugs, but spend your time whinging on blogs, until some FOSStard says 'go back to Window$ then!!11One'. At which point you get -- more -- disheartened and just go back to the Microsoft fold.
Personally, I just switched to Gnome. It's LessShit(tm) than Kubuntu, although you can't fully appreciate K Pride Week on LH's blog without using KDE.
It's just another fucking FOSS debacle.
Put up with the bugs, but spend your time whinging on blogs, until some FOSStard says 'go back to Window$ then!!11One'. At which point you get -- more -- disheartened and just go back to the Microsoft fold.
Will do !
I've been trying various Linsux distros on and off for a while now. My background is in asm (should give those that know what it is an idea of what kind of person is typing this), and my first encounter was minix. During the past decade and a half I've been working on just below a dozen distros in both academic and professional settings. The glazing has changed but the cake still tastes like old women's underwear. I'm still trying Linsux from time to time because it's fun to stop the verbal diarrhea of the occasional 20 year old Fosstard I encounter on my path to the grave.
Been in Vancouver once and you're right, the whales were better than the hookers.
This seems to be the problem with Freetards, they are so scared of someone switching to Windows, or finding Linux unable to fulfill their needs, that they'll do anything to stop that happening. They'll even make the person an enemy or just an evil agent of Microsoft, in their own minds.
The idea goes that since Linux is inclusive, the user can be involved in the development process, then everyone's bugs and problems can and will be fixed. Unfortunately, life doesn't work that way, but that's what the Freetard propaganda says so everyone swallows it.
Personally I like the idea of software Freedom, but realise there are some practical limits to its usefulness. I use Ubuntu due to this and because Windows gets right on my chimes. That's what WorksForMe(tm), you've got to use what WorksForYou(tm).
The glazing has changed but the cake still tastes like old women's underwear.
Hehehe, I'm interested to know: what has been consistently bad throughout that time? If the continued suckage is interesting, LH may write a post about it.
1. The corporate game
The problems fall under the umbrella "permissions". Let me clarify.
Most people (including IT departments, but I have muchos sympathy for those devils) assume that in a corporate setup the permissions reflect a departmental hierarchy. I.e. you work at department X, then you have access to x ... your job-description is Y, then your permissions are that subset.
Works perfect on paper.
In the real life, the employee has to take over someone's task for a small amount of time - no matter whether you're an engineer or maintainer for a storage facility where they stock the cubic meters of toilet paper and tubing. Very simple reasons: someone's sick/on holiday/got fired and you need the results or you're stuck for a few days. This generally means repeatedly calling IT for administrative support. In a company of 500+ employees the IT guys get bugged a few times per minute for this. They get fed up. They install systems on the server to slipstream the requests.
In large companies there are 2 kinds of servers: the linux-type and the MS-type.
The first have extremely bad general purpose interfaces with GUI concepts from when the birds went on foot. Each application has its own approach and set of bugs. Your colleagues share tips on what not to press. One colleague can even navigate the white arrow on a black screen because after all those times he knows where to find the button if the desktop flips out. The dedicated software for access to a location or a service is written in-house and results in having a page in your notebook with lines of scripting code and locations of other scripts with cryptic names. You don't know what they do and you don't want to know. Sometimes they brake and you end up at IT, you and a few dozen other colleagues. You go home early and return late the next day or take a day off.
The second type of servers have proprietary business software. You need access to a computer with IE or you vmware it. You follow the links in IE and fill in your credentials. You have access. They too get broken, IT reports it to their contracted supplier and you go get an ice-cream with your colleagues. An hour or two later it's fixed and everyone complains about MS.
2. The academic field.
There's a conference and oh-dear there's a workshop. You and a few others have problems installing that particular gnuarm. You and some others have trouble with curses. You and some others have problems with the USB for a piece of hardware kit they're demonstrating. Guess what you and some others are running.
A small group can't make it to a meeting and decide to have it on adobe connect or via the university meeting url. Guess which guys have to test it an hour in advance and which don't.
In a few weeks I'm switching back to XP full time. In about 6 months I'll be installing some new linux flavor and give it another go. It's what I'm interested in, I get frustrated as much as you guys but I like to fool around with software and hardware. I have the same relationship with yogurt.
In all seriousness, I'd just move straight to Vista SP1 if I were you. After a few hours of tweaking, I've found Vista to be faster, more intuitive and easier to use than XP. (note: I've been using a variety of OS's since the C-64).
No, I don't work for MS. :-)
It's ugly (yes, even KDE4 looks like shit, no matter what Freetards tell you), it's cluttered and unintuitive and most of the apps are half-finished.
Windows 2008/2003/2000 Server can set this up in five minutes with a simple wizard, after you do another simple wizard for DHCP.
Psst. A little secret for you... Don't tell it anyone. You can boot a complete linux workstation over the network without installation. No need for hitting F12. "linux hater" doesn't know anything about linux oder unix concepts. Who is now the Idiot?
#subnet 10.5.5.0 netmask 255.255.255.224 {
# range 10.5.5.26 10.5.5.30;
# option domain-name-servers ns1.internal.example.org;
# option domain-name "internal.example.org";
# option routers 10.5.5.1;
# default-lease-time 600;
# max-lease-time 7200;
#}
Which line was so time consuming?
LMAO! I don't know what's more sad, the fact that you think that editing config files manually -- or using a command line is a reasonable substitute for a GUI for the average user. Is this your best argument to convince your grandmother that she should move to Linux based on ease-of-use? Fuck you.Try handing those tasks to the average person, and point them at a Linux box. Game over. FAIL.
All it takes for the user account to be compromised is a little vulnerability in a web-facing program. There's no shortage of vulnerabilities in the Linux land. Firefox, for example, has plenty of holes.
Could we just stick to bashing Linux please? We've all seen these pissing matches before, they don't get us anywhere. The reason for this is very simple: people use whatever the fuck they want, and they'll defend that choice to the end.
The secret to the successful Linux hater is just that: hate Linux and only Linux. The flaws in the system stand on their own merits, no comparison with Windows required.
When people start bashing it invites flames and pissing matches.
Frankly this blog is if anything beneficial to Linux and FOSS in that it brings these issues to the forefront. I'm sure FOSS developers read this blog and take their notes under the scene. While I agree that most are blown out of proportion I wont deny that there is some factual content here.
No. It was beneficial, before the pissing match started.
which they will then spout their fosstard mantras tantamount to burying their heads in the sand.
This goes for Windows, Linux, and most UNIX systems... if your user account is compromised, you probably will not notice, and backups wont save you. On a Windows machine, something could have been started at login, taking advantage of any network wide privileges you may have. On UNIX-like systems, your profile might be modified to add a path to your home directory, which includes trojaned binaries. How long until something you execute with elevated privileges calls one of those in turn?
Claiming that the design of UNIX somehow saves you on modern Linux desktops & servers is utter BULLSHIT.
The superior design you talk of might have been worth something back in the days of big multi-user systems, with full privileges being obtained solely through logging in as a separate user, root.
Linux fanbois take heed, if your user account is capable of elevating privileges, you had better treat your home dir, and anything you can touch as if it was root's. This should account for 99.9% of user accounts on any modern system, including most servers. Might as well take a piss on UNIX fundamentals while your at it.
nothing of value inside a regular user's account on a *nix server (a
samba server might be different story). Maybe your shell history
file to help figure out the rest of the network. Compromise the
server, and the attacker could hide his tracks and snoop on ALL
admins that pass through. Don't know about you, but one infiltrated
corporate network is worth a whole lot more than some dolt's PC.
What are you going to do? Look for credit card info, try guessing
the CVV? Hope to find some moron who's kept all of his social,
account numbers, PINs in cleartext on his PC? Sell _one_ dude's
info? OK, I think you can see how a corporate network would be worth
more.
Lets all stop pretending the the wonderful design of UNIX's fortress-
like security means squat on today's distributed systems with our
current security practices.
Also... if someone has taken control of your system, they can
perpetually steal your data and anyone else's on that machine at the
very least, how in the hell does what you say make any sense?
Re "nothing of value inside a regular user's account on a *nix server": The days when everybody had all his data in his desktop and accounts were centralised have long passed. Most corporations force you to take weekly backups and my data is sitting on 5 servers for the simple reason that although I can access all of the places they represent from my desktop, these servers can't inter-communicate directly for good reasons (example in my first paragraph) or won't because of incompatibility. There's also not really something like "a regular user's account on a server" ... there are a number of servers and what they store is literally everything. There's a small server for time-registration, a server for finance, about 4 for engineering, one for QA, ... and this is for one location. A 4000-employee with a dozen locations (a rather small corporation) can easily have 50 servers spread over the globe.
system there is to keep data in and bad guys out.
I agree, but I don't see where this is going. I'm not necessarily
saying that *nix or MS security is wrong, just that it all tends to
fall apart as you scale out.
>There's also not really something like "a regular user's account on
a server"
There are though, most admins log in with one. The original point I
was trying to make was just that a compromised user account can be a
very big deal. There seems to be some myth that a Linux virus can
only rm -rf ~, and flash "nyah nyah nyah" on the screen. As you seem
to imply, corporate networks are very complex and hard to keep track
of, a malicious program anywhere in it could end up being a huge
ordeal. Even a bugged account on a home system could be huge. Very
few people pay close enough attention to the depths of their
filesystems to notice anything was wrong. Why break in, destroy
everything and leave? Why break in, steal everything and leave? Why
leave or ever give away your presence at all? "I'll only lose my
home dir" is bogus, that's what I'm saying.
>A 4000-employee with a dozen locations (a rather small corporation)
can easily have 50 servers spread over the globe.
I would imagine VERY many more than 50. Security is hard :\
There is also software, such as Rootkit Hunter that can scan and detect changes to these config files, permissions, and suspect kernel modules (potential rootkits).
More importantly is the unlikelihood that exploit vectors would remain open long enough for any real effect. I recieve security and bug fix updates nearly daily on my Linux system. This is in addition to security prevention mechanisms like ExecShield and SELinux MAC; I've configured SELinux to detect apps that behave irregular or try to perform illegal instructions, such as making a region of memory both executable and writable.
Never mind the extremely unlikely event of ever contracting a virus or trojan from a trusted software repository. Heh, what are the chances a malicious binary would run without the user knowing exactly what libs are required? Its possible the file wouldn't even execute due to Linux's unstable ABIs, especially if it didn't target a range of glibc versions.
LSB helps to solve the binary compatibility issue but what are the chances we'd see a crappy-ass written virus, trojan, or worm developed with LSB libraries?
Good luck convincing any sensible Linux user that if they compile the virus (errm.. useful app) and run it as root that magical orgasmic creations would appear on the screen. This could only occur with social engineering and a great way to make enemies out of someone.
going to make assumptions about all the other pathetic Linux desktop
users in the world?
Sure, _you_ can lock down any one machine like Fort Knox, can you do
that to a whole network? How many users do you suppose do this,
taking into consideration the level of difficulty and inconveniences
it poses?
/etc/password, WTF dude, who doesn't use centralized authentication
today?
Look dude, this isn't exactly the direction I wanted this to go. I'm
a UNIX admin on a smallish/medium sized network.
We all know that with a lot of elbow grease you can build little
secure silos out of ANY OS, it just doesn't scale, and isn't very
practical.
>>This could only occur with social engineering and a great way to
make enemies out of someone.
LOL, I'm sure con artists, and criminals give a flying piss what
society thinks of them.
Going back to my original point, "IF I'm infected, then I'll only
lose my home directory" is BS. - Just as short sighted as "If
someone breaks into my home I'll just lose some stuff"
"I COULD build a high tech, super secure castle of a PC" is BS. - I
COULD also put up an electric fence, razor wire, and moat full of
alligators around my house. I could be a big asshole and say
everyone else should to do it too. This is a very impractical way of
improving national security.
"Social engineering doesn't count" is TOTAL BS. - Think VERY hard
how differently all your whole system could behave if social
engineering wasn't considered a serious attack vector. Internet
security is still largely built on trust, part of implementing good
security is eliminating any blind trust. How about enforcing SSL
certs or any method of preventing forged email delivery? Were those
implemented just on a whim?
We can do better, just need to wake up and think real hard about
TODAY's security.
... or go back to what, ~20 year old models that our current security
is based on... big, trusted, centralized systems in large
universities, corporations and government?
you read a God-damned thing anyone else wrote here?
You can't HOPE that somebody who breaks in only does X, instead of X,
Y, and Z. Explain what the hell you were thinking and how this
applies to security. I'll be kind, even the loosest interpretation
of the word "security" will do. Or, PISS OFF.
You're missing the larger point, which is that EVERY OS is vulnerable to malware of one kind or another. Freetards routinely make FALSE CLAIMS that simply running Linux is enough to protect them from harm. It ISN'T enough; in fact, it's worse because they have a false sense of security over their presumed invulnerability.
Furthermore, freetards criticize Windows users for running malware detection & removal tools (eg. virus scanners, spyware scanners, enhanced firewalls, adblockers, etc). But you've basically just confirmed what we already know: If you want to secure your system from attack, you're going to need to run some kind of malware detection & removal tools. Doesn't matter if it's Windows or Linux or OS X or BSD. ALL are vulnerable.
More importantly is the unlikelihood that exploit vectors would remain open long enough for any real effect.
You're wrong. Practically nobody in the general public is qualified as a sys admin. People that don't know better are going to remain vulnerable, unless they're running automated tools that do the detection & removal for them.
Never mind the extremely unlikely event of ever contracting a virus or trojan from a trusted software repository.
Don't kid yourself. It's happened before. It will happen again.
http://www.geek.com/major-open-source-code-repo...
LSB helps to solve the binary compatibility issue but what are the chances we'd see a crappy-ass written virus, trojan, or worm developed with LSB libraries?
With security, diversity is actually a strength. Standardization is a problem. LSB increases the odds that hacks will proliferate because malware writers will be able to count on common conventions.
Good luck convincing any sensible Linux user that if they compile the virus (errm.. useful app) and run it as root that magical orgasmic creations would appear on the screen. This could only occur with social engineering and a great way to make enemies out of someone.
How the fuck do you think that most malware attacks occur? Social engineering. Read this email. Click this link. People don't think. If Linux gains more users, those users will be untrained, they won't be able to distinguish between correct and incorrect usage policies, and they'll get fucked. There's nothing that you can do about it. Malware detection IMPROVES things, but it doesn't eliminate the problem, because the problem is unsolvable without removing significant flexibility from the machine -- which nobody wants.
Furthermore, freetards criticize Windows users for running malware detection & removal tools (eg. virus scanners, spyware scanners, enhanced firewalls, adblockers, etc). But you've basically just confirmed what we already know: If you want to secure your system from attack, you're going to need to run some kind of malware detection & removal tools. Doesn't matter if it's Windows or Linux or OS X or BSD. ALL are vulnerable.
I'm not disputing this and your right in that its foolish for Linux users to claim otherwise.
But the fact of the matter is there are a great deal of technical details that make Linux less susceptible in general. Most of them are associated with the unstable target that is Linux and the nature of FOSS software distribution.
Security through obscurity also comes into play as well.
These days, distros are adopting more pre-emptive security features like Buffer overflow checking GCC, ExecShield (address space randomization and NoExecute), SELinux, PAX, and AppArmor mandatory access systems.
So Linux has also become more secure from an architectural standpoint.
You're wrong. Practically nobody in the general public is qualified as a sys admin. People that don't know better are going to remain vulnerable, unless they're running automated tools that do the detection & removal for them.
The most effective preventative measure is being consistent with software updates. Software updates are what I was referring to in this paragraph.
Don't kid yourself. It's happened before. It will happen again.
http://www.geek.com/major-open-source-code-repo...>
Interesting but that was five years ago and not even a distribution repository but rather a generic FTP repository. The FSF reported that no project source code was compromised.
But I'll give you one point for finding this information.
With security, diversity is actually a strength. Standardization is a problem. LSB increases the odds that hacks will proliferate because malware writers will be able to count on common conventions.
Perhaps but advantages of standardization for Linux astronomically outweighs this little tidbit. There will always be distributions that aren't LSB complaint and its always possible to uninstall the LSB libraries.
In Fedora, LSB libraries are installed as a package called redhat-lsb and there are no dependencies for it. However, they are required if I wanted to, for example, install RealPlayer 11 Linux.
How the fuck do you think that most malware attacks occur? Social engineering. Read this email. Click this link. People don't think. If Linux gains more users, those users will be untrained, they won't be able to distinguish between correct and incorrect usage policies, and they'll get fucked. There's nothing that you can do about it. Malware detection IMPROVES things, but it doesn't eliminate the problem, because the problem is unsolvable without removing significant flexibility from the machine -- which nobody wants.
Perhaps but I think awareness of phishing and Internet fraud is spreading. Most people use computers and finding security-related articles on the internet isn't hard. My father is very computer illiterate yet is smart of enough to know not to open attachments from unknown sources or follow through with Nigerian bank scams.
Sigh...
That was a reply not an edit.
Or maybe its because I haven't checked "Verify my post"?
1) Windows has automated install... one Internets for you.
2) You don't have to know shit about the kernel to configure the firewall. Most users don't even need to bother with iptables when there are GUI front-ends like Firestarter and system-config-firewall. Fedora includes the latter and is enabled by default.Firestarter is in the repositories.
3) Wow... ever hear of backing up the home directory!?!? If it happened to be deleted then log in a root and create a new home directory with useradd -m or the equivalent Users & Groups GUI tool.
4) Have you ever heard of opening Fileroller and dragging files into an archive and its sub directories? Did you know Fileroller alone supports 11 archive formats? The only format it doesn't handle well is 7zip but there are alternative apps to handle those.
5) Bullshit dude. It only takes me 1 to 2 hours to install all the updates in a fresh Fedora installation and that is before I grab the "fastest mirror" yum plug-in. The volume of updates in Fedora are likely higher than Ubuntu as well.
You must fucking be on dial-up and we all know Linux and dial-up don't mix. Dial-up can and does work on Linux with a PPP client and either a hardware internal or external modem; only a few ISPs use a non-standard PPP or PPPoE clients which Linux might not support. But imagine trying to install the apps you need from a repository on dial-up.
5) Umm... rdesktop and xrdp. The nice frontends are tsclient, Gnome-RDP, and Krdc. VNC is alright...Vinagre is a vastly improved VNC client over the that shit vncviewer.
Umm... rdesktop and xrdp? The nice front-ends are tsclient, Gnome-RDP, and Krdc. VNC is an alright remote desktop protocol. Vinagre is a fantastic VNC client and light years ahead of that shit vncviewer that we love to hate.
Point is Linux usually has BASH, Perl, Python, etc. out of the box because apps require them as dependencies and BASH is just the standard shell. Therefore you have scripting capabilities right out-of-the box.
Interestingly enough a FOSS PowerShell solution, Pash, is under development as well. Its a new project and not feature complete yet--about 40% of the commands are implemented so far. Nevertheless, Pash may become a major contender on *nix once the project begins to take off.
Why compile from source when many projects provide pre-compiled DEB and RPM packages in addition to source packages?
The problem is pretty minor now but will become virtually a non-issue then.
I figure it will be ready shortly after the Fedora 10 release, which is scheduled a few months from now.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/07/14/asus_li...
Yeah, I know beastiality isn't a crime, but still.
Becoming a woman didn't really help with that.
No way to fucking edit comments on this blog.
Fail.
Kind of like how people confuse linux with a real operating system.
Kind of like how people confuse linux with a real operating system.
This is just an epic fail on your part. You ought to be forced to use Kubuntu full-time for six months due to your shittiness.
edit: see...
"Umm... rdesktop and xrdp. The nice frontends are tsclient, Gnome-RDP, and Krdc. VNC is alright...Vinagre is a vastly improved VNC client over the that shit vncviewer."
Or more importantly: it's not that the system isn't destroyed, it's that no-one elses home directories are destroyed. There are quite a few environments where multiple home directories are stored on the same machine (although large corps running Windows will invariably have the same sort of permissions setup as Linux comes with by default).
Deployment is significantly easier with Windows automated installs than Linux. I use it all the time.
2) You don't have to know shit about the kernel to configure the firewall. Most users don't even need to bother with iptables when there are GUI front-ends like Firestarter and system-config-firewall. Fedora includes the latter and is enabled by default.Firestarter is in the repositories.
You just don't get it. Linux firewall configuration is DELIBERATELY more difficult -- regardless of whether you need to dork with the kernel or not -- than configuring Windows firewall exceptions. There's a price to be paid for paranoia, and that's what you get with Linux.
3) Wow... ever hear of backing up the home directory!?!?
Apparently, you aren't aware that people simply don't back up their machines. Ever. They run until they stop running.
4) Have you ever heard of opening Fileroller and dragging files into an archive and its sub directories?
Fail. Fileroller is NOT integrated directly into Gnome or KDE like Windows zip folders, which just work right in the Windows Explorer. No need to dick around with a separate app.
5) Bullshit dude. It only takes me 1 to 2 hours to install all the updates in a fresh Fedora installation...You must fucking be on dial-up and we all know Linux and dial-up don't mix.
You're basically saying FUCK YOU to average folks in the heartland who can't afford broadband. Nice.
5) Umm... rdesktop and xrdp. The nice frontends are tsclient, Gnome-RDP, and Krdc. VNC is alright...Vinagre is a vastly improved VNC client over the that shit vncviewer.
Mostly cheap knock-offs of Microsoft TS client. Don't FOSS advocates invent anything of their own anymore?
Fedora and RHEL have Kickstart, which is an automated install method for Anaconda. A kickstart configuration script can either be made manually or generated via Anaconda.
I'm sure other distros have their ways as well.
>> You just don't get it. Linux firewall configuration is DELIBERATELY more difficult -- regardless of whether you need to dork with the kernel or not -- than configuring Windows firewall exceptions. There's a price to be paid for paranoia, and that's what you get with Linux.
And I'm saying that is just a load of BS.
>> Apparently, you aren't aware that people simply don't back up their machines. Ever. They run until they stop running.
Well then they'll either be fine or learn the hard way? Its far more likely that their hard drive will fail than their system to be compromised when we factor in Linux's current marketshare state.
>> Fail. Fileroller is NOT integrated directly into Gnome or KDE like Windows zip folders, which just work right in the Windows Explorer. No need to dick around with a separate app.
So what? You can open Nautilus and right click on a file then create an archive with that file contained in it.
>> You're basically saying FUCK YOU to average folks in the heartland who can't afford broadband. Nice.
I live in a rural area and still have DSL.
But no... its not saying anything. You CAN have dial-up its just won't be a pleasant experience, unless you never update or need to download anything. You cannot buy Linux software in stores so the Internet is basically the only option.
>> Mostly cheap knock-offs of Microsoft TS client. Don't FOSS advocates invent anything of their own anymore?
Umm.. no they exist for the purpose of interoperability. Same damn thing with Samba. Linux has other solutions like SSH with X11 forwarding and FreeNX Client/Server.
I've used both Kickstart and Windows Automated Installs. WAI goes way further than KickStart. It has extremely flexible group policy rules that allow for very granular OS policies.
And I'm saying that is just a load of BS.
It's not BS to say that Windows Firewall exceptions are easier to use than running Firestarter or system-config-firewall. Windows Firewall doesn't even require you to run a utility AT ALL. You simply run an app, Windows Firewall detects that it's trying to open a port, and it asks whether you want to give it permissions. You don't get that automated support with Firestarter or system-config-firewall. You have to do a lot more heavy-lifting. You won't admit it but, then again, you've lied and been called on it a number of times here, so I wouldn't be surprised now.
Well then they'll either be fine or learn the hard way?
THIS is the best you can muster for your defense of malware destroying the home directory?!? Nice. Fuck you very much.
So what? You can open Nautilus and right click on a file then create an archive with that file contained in it.
Again, my point was that it's MORE DIFFICULT than Windows. What part of that statement do you not understand? Just fucking admit it, and we can move on. You're wasting time trying to defend the indefensible.
I live in a rural area and still have DSL.
It isn't just an availability problem. It's a cost thing. Dial-up can be had for less than $10 in many communities. That may not seem like a lot to you, but it is a big deal to seniors, single mothers, the indigent, etc.
You CAN have dial-up its just won't be a pleasant experience
Compared to Windows, which works just fine right out of the box.
...unless you never update or need to download anything.
Which we know isn't the case with Linux.
You cannot buy Linux software in stores so the Internet is basically the only option.
Who would want to stock software that people aren't willing to buy?
Umm.. no they exist for the purpose of interoperability.
Nice side-step. Point is, FOSS (incl Linux) ISN'T about innovation. It's all about refabrication and duplication -- in an inferior manner to the software being copied.
Group Policy is a Windows technology so of course it doesn't exist in Kickstart. Kickstart focuses directly with basic installation procedures.
FreeIPA is a project meant to bring similar auditing and central group and user management to Linux.
It's not BS to say that Windows Firewall exceptions are easier to use than running Firestarter or system-config-firewall. Windows Firewall doesn't even require you to run a utility AT ALL. You simply run an app, Windows Firewall detects that it's trying to open a port, and it asks whether you want to give it permissions. You don't get that automated support with Firestarter or system-config-firewall. You have to do a lot more heavy-lifting. You won't admit it but, then again, you've lied and been called on it a number of times here, so I wouldn't be surprised now.
Linux firewalls block incoming and outgoing packets based on their associated ports or IPs. Firestarter has live monitoring so you see exactly whats happening.
Being prompted applications that need their ports open (when not in the exception list) is annoying as fuck. Oh and guess what... there still is a firewall configuration utility much like system-config-firewall, firestarter, and gaurddog.
http://www.bu.edu/webcentral/learning/vista/gra...
THIS is the best you can muster for your defense of malware destroying the home directory?!? Nice. Fuck you very much.
Well if the user is unwilling to spend 2 minutes to back up their home directory onto a flash drive or create a simple anacron task that'll do it automatically then what can I say?
Again, my point was that it's MORE DIFFICULT than Windows. What part of that statement do you not understand? Just fucking admit it, and we can move on. You're wasting time trying to defend the indefensible.
No its not dumbass. Fileroller is better because it handles multiple formats and very intuitive. You best install WinRAR if you want any other compression formats to be supported and WinRAR isn't even free unless you're a dipshit pirate.
It isn't just an availability problem. It's a cost thing. Dial-up can be had for less than $10 in many communities. That may not seem like a lot to you, but it is a big deal to seniors, single mothers, the indigent, etc.
Whatever... DSL can be purchased for at little as $20 a month, which is still or was cheaper than premium AOL dial-up.
Compared to Windows, which works just fine right out of the box.
Except when you have to configure the modem settings: ISP access numbers, area code, port settings, etc. Some ISP include their own PPP clients that have wizard to does the same thing.
Which we know isn't the case with Linux.
Your point is?
Who would want to stock software that people aren't willing to buy?
Irrelevant. The fact remains that the Internet is the only source in most cases, minus a few commercial boxed offerings; however those usually have to be purchased online because retail stores still wont carry them.
Nice side-step. Point is, FOSS (incl Linux) ISN'T about innovation. It's all about refabrication and duplication -- in an inferior manner to the software being copied.
Nobody has really innovated with software in a long time. One only needs to glance at OS X to understand why Vista isn't all that innovative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDNuq94Zg_8
In other words, it isn't a complete solution. Like most FOSS projects.
FreeIPA is a project meant to bring similar auditing and central group and user management to Linux.
LMAO! Yeah, by all means, let me know when FOSS catches up to what Windows has TODAY.
Being prompted applications that need their ports open (when not in the exception list) is annoying as fuck.
Guess what: automated prompting is the only way that average users can figure out how to enable network-enabled apps. Getting them to drill down through a layer of menus to a control panel to some config utility is TOTAL FAIL.
Oh and guess what... there still is a firewall configuration utility much like system-config-firewall, firestarter, and gaurddog.
See above. TOTAL FAIL.
Well if the user is unwilling to spend 2 minutes to back up their home directory onto a flash drive or create a simple anacron task that'll do it automatically then what can I say?
Nothing. I'm not asking you to defend what can't be defended. All OSes are vulnerable. As long as we can agree on that basic premise, there's no need for further discussion.
No its not dumbass. Fileroller is better because it handles multiple formats and very intuitive.
It's not integrated into Gnome/KDE; therefore it IS more difficult for the average user. Trying to suggest otherwise is just nonsensical and wrong.
Whatever... DSL can be purchased for at little as $20 a month, which is still or was cheaper than premium AOL dial-up.
Not in all areas. Particularly where stringing fiber isn't possible.
Except when you have to configure the modem settings: ISP access numbers, area code, port settings, etc. Some ISP include their own PPP clients that have wizard to does the same thing.
Compared to Linux, which doesn't even advise you to pull down your pants before it fucks you.
Your point is?
Never updating is never an option when you're Internet-connected. Unless you enjoy failure.
Irrelevant. The fact remains that the Internet is the only source in most cases...
You missed the point. It doesn't HAVE to be the only source. It just IS because you have no other option. But PEOPLE -- you know, humans -- tend to be far more bricks-and-mortar than your typical Linux nerd. Hence, you'll never get a toehold in the average person's home.
Nobody has really innovated with software in a long time. One only needs to glance at OS X to understand why Vista isn't all that innovative.
Your statements are self-contradictory. Either OS X is innovating -- or it's not. Figure it out and try again.
Well Kickstart appears to offer basic auto install configurations, such as enabling or disabling SELinux, setting it's restriction mode, creating user accounts, enabling specific services, etc.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda/Kickstart
But no... FreeIPA has no integration with Kickstart from what I can tell.
LMAO! Yeah, by all means, let me know when FOSS catches up to what Windows has TODAY.
http://freeipa.org/page/Roadmap
The big features like Policy and Access Control are to come with the November 2.0 release.
Guess what: automated prompting is the only way that average users can figure out how to enable network-enabled apps. Getting them to drill down through a layer of menus to a control panel to some config utility is TOTAL FAIL.
Firestarter poses a wizard on the first launch to set everything up. Then an icon appears in the tray area for easy access later.
It really is a no brainer but of course you couldn't possibly admit to anything positive. Your just a bias fuck like most of the posters here; therefore convincing them otherwise is futile.
Nothing. I'm not asking you to defend what can't be defended. All OSes are vulnerable. As long as we can agree on that basic premise, there's no need for further discussion.
I don't think I ever disagreed about that. What we disagree about is backups. Lazyness is no excuse and the victim would realize this in the event of data loss--an event that would more likely be attributed by user error, power surge, or failed non-RAID HDD than malware.
We agree that malware is possible on all OSes and distros like Fedora would handle the issues as well as Vista with similar security features. However, Linux's marketshare position and ABI instability ensures that malware and viruses remain a minuscule issue for desktop users.
It's not integrated into Gnome/KDE; therefore it IS more difficult for the average user. Trying to suggest otherwise is just nonsensical and wrong.
Wrong. The zip file integration in Explorer lacks functionality. Therefore external programs like WinRAR and WinZIP are better suited to the task.
If Windows default ZIP support were so great then these 3rd party app wouldn't have gathered near as much popularity as they have. I've frequently seen these apps on the top downloads list at Download.com.
Not in all areas. Particularly where stringing fiber isn't possible.
If the phone lines are shitty and not equipped for DSL transmission then yes.
Cable is another option and is often faster as long as you aren't sharing the bandwidth with a gazillion neighbors.
Compared to Linux, which doesn't even advise you to pull down your pants before it fucks you.
http://www.debianadmin.com/setting-up-dial-up-c...
Hardly more complicated. The article show two different ways of configuring PPP and the modem.
Never updating is never an option when you're Internet-connected. Unless you enjoy failure.
Its an option when hardware and software are working in their current state but not a particularity wise one from a security standpoint.
Your statements are self-contradictory. Either OS X is innovating -- or it's not. Figure it out and try again.
OS X was innovative when it was first released in 2001--seven years ago. But even OS X based itself on NeXT concepts and a FreeBSD base (minus the kernel).
Since then OS X has had many evolutionary enhancements but only a couple revolutionary ones. Time machine, Spotlight, and Coverflow are more evolutionary enhancements than revolutionary but are the more interesting new features in recent OS X releases.
I personally think all modern OSes and their GUIs trace back to Xerox.
I'm skeptical that you're evolving your narrow thinking, but it's a start to admit the obvious.
The big features like Policy and Access Control are to come with the November 2.0 release.
It's currently vaporware.
Firestarter poses a wizard on the first launch to set everything up. Then an icon appears in the tray area for easy access later.
But, of course, if Firestarter is installed BEFORE a given app, the user has to REALIZE that they need to enable that app's firewall throughput with Firestarter. See what I mean? The lack of automation is the problem. I'm not saying that it's IMPOSSIBLE. I'm just saying that it's more difficult -- and that's the fundamental problem with FOSS: It's just not designed with the same ease-of-use as Windows and OS X.
What we disagree about is backups. Lazyness is no excuse and the victim would realize this in the event of data loss--an event that would more likely be attributed by user error, power surge, or failed non-RAID HDD than malware.
I don't think we disagree about backups. What we disagree about is the REALITY that USERS DON'T BACK UP THEIR DATA. My Mom hasn't backed up her data in, like, 4 years. The problem is the immensity of the data. She has around 8GB of photos on her hard drive, and she only has a CD-R drive. It's just too much of a hassle for her. I hooked up an external USB drive, and backed up the data for her. But she just won't do it. Most users are the same way. They have an unrealistic faith in hardware technology. So, destruction of ~ is a really BAD thing.
Hardly more complicated. The article show two different ways of configuring PPP and the modem.
Except you don't have to do that in Windows. NetZero and other vendors provide automated installers.
Its an option when hardware and software are working in their current state but not a particularity wise one from a security standpoint.
Then why even draw the distinction? You'd have to be a dumbfuck to even consider not updating an option.
OS X was innovative when it was first released in 2001--seven years ago. But even OS X based itself on NeXT concepts and a FreeBSD base (minus the kernel).
Apple beat most other desktop OSes to the punch on hardware desktop composition, and its usability is constantly superior to anything offered by FOSS. You may not consider that innovative, but it is.
According to Speedtest.net the national bandwidth average in the USA is 5.546 Mbps; the global average is 4.465 Mbps.
30 minutes to download updates is only slightly above average for me. Sometimes updates take an hour or longer. It just depends whats being updated.
Also, stop trying to downplay the time required for updating Fedora/Ubuntu. It takes AT LEAST an hour to download and then additional time to install various packages. 30 minutes is complete BS.
Its a luxury if your income is just above the poverty level or you live on top of Mt. Everest. But shit son there is always satellite broadband for those who do live far away from civilization.
Granted, satellite internet is no bargain deal but neither is driving round trip to civilization to purchase groceries and other consumer items.
BTW, 30 minutes may be bullshit as well. If you keep up with updates then you'll generally recieve fewer of them at a time. Often enough I'll get single package updates that take all of 30 seconds to download and install.
Not true. There are plenty of "middle income" people who don't have enough disposable income after they're done paying for food, gas, tuition, and other necessities. Broadband is a luxury, even in this country.
But if they can afford dial up then they could afford DSL by sacrificing say premium TV channels or commuting with a bicycle or scooter more frequently, rather than always by gas guzzling SUVs or trucks.
Congratulations. You're getting it. It isn't the cost of broadband, per se. It's the cost of EVERYTHING ELSE plus broadband.
But if they can afford dial up then they could afford DSL by sacrificing say premium TV channels or commuting with a bicycle or scooter more frequently, rather than always by gas guzzling SUVs or trucks.
Some people don't have that luxury. For example, if you live in a state where there's scant public transportation (eg. Nebraska) and you have to commute a long distance between school, work, etc. Some people use gas guzzling SUVs and trucks in conjunction with their work (eg. construction, sales, etc). Telling them that they need to get rid of their vehicle or find another way to get to work is essentially like telling them that they need to change professions. Probably not an option. What I'm trying to get through to you is that your priorities are simply different than many other peoples'. It isn't your fault (or theirs). It's just the way it is.
And I have cable, a fresh vanilla install of openSUSE takes about 45 minutes on an AMD x64 dual processor with 2 gb RAM. Then I have to connect the ethernet cable because linux doesn't support Atheros cards on install. The recommended updates takes about another 45 minutes. Then I have to fight with madwifi to get my wireless working - I still can't get it to work on openSUSE 11.0, and I didn't have the time between homework to figure it out so I'm sticking with 10.3 right now.
My windows installs (unless I'm using one of those annoying recovery disks) takes about 1 hr total.
Also, your link does state 1 billion users by 2008... but are you aware that the Earth's population is well on it's way to 6 billion. So no broadband is not a staple of the average global household.
SUSE is a big, full-fledged distro. 45 minutes seems about right for a distro several GBs installed.
I have no comment about madwifi other than I would attempt to help if I had experience with that driver. My laptop system has a Broadcom based WNIC; it works just fine after firmware installation.
A Fedora LiveCD takes about 30 minutes to install about 2-3 GB of files. However my 5 year-old P4 system is far less capable.
Umm... http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/i....
1 billion broadband users will appear significant when there are just now over 1 billion computers connected to the Internet. There is really no way of knowing how many isolated systems exist but dial-up need not apply to them.
Note: it doesn't appear this measurement includes connected mobile devices. The number would be much larger otherwise.
FreeNX Client/Server a work in progress, last time i tried in arch linux i was not able to disconnect and resume local session, its not well integrated with X
> reinstall Ubuntu to get my home directory back, right?
So true.
mkdir
YES, IT CREATES A DIRECTORY!
All your settings, documents, and stuff that matters is as good as gone.
Congratulation,
You've just won an Aaron.
Windows handles that by automatically putting mandatory locks on files that are opened for writing. This actually saved my butt recently when an admin using OpenSSH (running on SFU/Interix on Win2k3) did a rm -fr * on what he thought was a directory full of defunct database backups but was actually a directory full of live SQL Server databases. Since SQL Server had those files open for writing they were all locked and what the admin got back was a bunch of access denied errors and a cold sweat. If that had been a UNIX-type OS, he'd have blown away a dozen production databases used by our clients.
This has nothing to do with this thread here, you're talking about something different. Even in this case you're wrong, as in linux the inodes would be still in use and easily accessible from /proc/[process id]/fd/[file descriptor], [process id] being the process ids of the database server processes. Windows is badly designed in this case, as it effectively prohibits live updates to the system core for zero gain.
IE7 on Vista uses these fatures to run in "Protected Mode" by default.
For services, there are special built-in limited access accounts like "Network Service" that has limited access to the local machine and "Local Service" which has no network access.
Also, by default the Firewall is running and no services can listen on the network.
I've seen windows security features in xp, they cause way too much trouble for what they're worth. I'm still unable to open Office XP files from a network location and have no way to find out what is causing this. The weird thing is that I can copy the file locally, then open it.
Anyway, I'll check vista and see if anything has changed. Thanks for the information.
http://blogs.msdn.com/michael_howard/search.asp...
I used XP as a non-admin for years (and I write code). It takes a little fiddling but can be done and lived with. Sometimes you really need to have your own account be admin to get stuff to work. The MakeMeAdmin script from Aaron Margolis is great for this.
http://blogs.msdn.com/aaron_margosis/archive/20...
Vista's UAC prompt is much more convenient. Because I'm paranoid, I take my own account out of the Administrators group. When you do that the UAC dialog requires you to provide credentials to elevate a process and you aren't just relying on integrity levels. Integrity Levels are not a bunker designed to survive a nuclear attack.
Backups are universally important, I'm in full and complete agreement with you.
However, as an end user, the overhead of recovering my personal information is far greater and far more important than the overhead of reinstalling the binaries, say, using Ghost or vLite.
I don't care about the software, only about what I do with it.
Now, do you win an Internet for recognizing backups as a universally important, or an Aaron for failing to research UAC?
I've lost backups because of that piece of shit program wouldn't restore the files to a different machine and with it's suck ass format. XCopy or zip would be a much better choice; or working through the shadow copy service.
"Novell wants the community to pick up maintenance and development of AppArmor. But tossing it in the wind and hoping is not good enough assurance for me, so now it's my business to go find sponsors who are willing to pay for AppArmor development," Cowan said.
rm -rf *
Only pity is that Arch is harder to use than Ubuntu, no gui tools and all text files. But with some work, this can change. I no longer use Ubuntu.
Anyway, nice work LH. Although I like Linux a lot, it isn't wise to be blinded by zealotry.
Find something that Linux does better than its competition.
Notable examples:
1. Super Computers.
- How does Windows HPC compares?
2. Low-end web server.
- Why is the market share of Linux in decline?
3. THIS SPACE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
1-They do not need graphical access.
2-The software is upgraded veery rarely.
3-They are very very specialised systems so they often need to make some changes here or there.
In other words, it's not Microsoft market. Sure, maybe in the future they'll try to go there (they always do) but that's not the point. Nobody is arguing that Microsoft is good for those systems, what LH is saying is that Linux is crap on the desktop, or for not computer savvy people.
If $400 isn't low end enough then I would question why you need a dedicated server in the first place.
http://www.betanews.com/article/More_Linux_prom...
What a fucking joke.
Either someone's dual-booting, or they're a quadruple amputee.
Linux is all about noise.
However, some of the points looks at the issues from a Linux-newbie points and experienced Windows sysadmin point, which is quite unfair.
A Linux-newbie should use the package-manager provided with Ubuntu to install stable applications that will update themselves. A Windows-newbie will browse the web for applications and break the system when installing two pairs of antivirus or firewall-software, bloating the system with crappy applications, or plainly downloading malware.
For system updates, I'd hightlight some other issues Windows has.
Sure, Ubuntu releases are released more often than service packs are for Windows, but they also add a great deal more functionality than service packs do.
No, you don't have to upgrade your whole Windows-system to get Firefox 3, but you'll have have 20 update-checkers running and manually go check for new software all the time. With regards to the ease of which Ubuntu handles package-updates and distro-updates I don't even see this as a problem.
Also, to be fair, you have to include the time of reboots and time and money of upgrading to Vista into the calculation.
And you're implying that Windows-updates never cause any problems? How many computers have you tried installing SP3 on? WGA isn't that helpful either - there aren't many users that I've helped that realized they'd have to visit Windows/Microsoft Update once in a while to install a new WGA to get the newest updates.
Additionally, as people have pointed out, Windows have a tendency of degrading it own's performance over time. I generally have a "software life cycle" of 6-12 months of any Windows XP-installation at any given client.
The topic of remote assistance is a complex one though. I don't like helping people configure their mail over RDP/VNC either, especially when they're on slow links. And I feel stressed that I'm occupying their desktop. But an SSH-server with Powershell on Windows probably wouldn't let me configure Outlook Express for a user, since it's all in the GUI. Nearly all GUI applications on Linux are frontends though, so I can edit the configuration-files by hand over SSH and kindly ask the user to try the application again (and during the troubleshooting they've been using their desktop as normal).
Besides, the huge advantage in Windows is that it's easy to upgrade from Firefox 2.0 to Firefox 3.0. Just download and install. On Ubuntu, for example, you're pretty much locked into receiving security updates to the chosen major.minor release version until the next version of Ubuntu comes out. Sure you can upgrade from 2.0 to 3.0 manually but that isn't for the faint of heart... and good luck getting all those plugins working again.
The really unfortunate thing is that a whole slew of the updaters don't use cryptographic signatures of their updates and are vulnerable to DNS cache poisoning attacks.
Guess what, package managers have the same sort of security problems. And on top of that they are use a ton of mirrors on who-knows-whose severs. Fortunately, since nobody really uses desktop Linux there's very little point in attacking these systems.
http://www.cs.arizona.edu/people/justin/package...
Used it myself. Very secure. Very easy to use and very flexible.
Linux on the dekstop is Linux on the desktop, doesn't matter if you paid for it or not or if you use it at home, at the office, on the train, it's still ....can you guess??....Linux on the desktop!!!!! Hey guess what? People use XP at home and in the office too. And other people use Linux in the office and at home too! And some people use XP at work and Linux at home! And some people use Linux at the office and XP at home! OMG! It's all so confusing! They didn't tell me this at Distrowatch or on my Ubuntu CD! Ranpha you're almost as stupid as LHB Supporter but you win one whole entire interweb to take home with you tonight because you can actually spell, or at least have figured out that spellcheckers exist.
You make salient points about "Linux on the desktop" ... enterprise or home, in my mind, a desktop computer running "desktop" applications counts as an install. And, I'd wager, Ubuntu still hasn't caught up to RHEL in that regard.
Nonetheless, I think the point of this particular post is: the "challenge" put forth didn't really make much sense, since Aaron Toponce doesn't seem to know, technically, the best way to install Windows XP ... and, to be more fair, he should have done the comparison with Vista SP1, Microsoft's *latest* OS ... as a user of Linux/Mac OS/Windows (for about 15 years, oy) ... after some initial tweaking (necessary on any desktop OS install, IMHO) .. Vista has been quite solid for me, and doesn't cause many problems at all. Now, the same can be said for my Fedora 9 install, but that did take longer to get setup.
Almost all the stuff I've heard about the Asus Eee PC and the Dells with Ubuntu pre-installed has been very positive. Installation, whether it's of XP, Vista, Ubuntu, Suse, OS X, is a huge obstacle for most users, who either don't want to do it, can't do it, or both. Dell's pre-install of Ubuntu has been praised a lot in every review of it I've seen.
Ubuntu ubuntu ubuntu.....it seems the biggest suckers for their fanboy's claims and Canonical's PR are all the anti-free software zealots. Funny, but come to think of it I'm starting to actually like Ubuntu.....
And this is why lusers are lusers. Millions? What frickin' planet are you on? From IHT:
"In Japan, about 1.1 million subnotebooks were sold in the 12 months that ended in March, a 3 percent increase from the year before, while sales of full-sized notebooks fell 9 percent during the same period to 4.7 million units. Worldwide, International Data expects 6.6 million ultra-portables to be sold this year."
Given the huge popularity of the Vaio-U in Japan, it's EXTREMELY doubtful there are millions of Linux used in the subnotebook market, especially when the leaders are Palm, Handspring, Sony and Compaq.
Perhaps to get information on global sales of an Asus product I should have concentrated on a Sony product's sales in Japan? An interesting idea but regrettably one that marks you out as an idiot.
Possibly many people who buy an Eee PC don't know or care what the underlying OS is, why should they? They're not shopping for an OS whether it's NT or Linux based, or anything else. They're shopping for a device.
That kills your argument. For starters, it's not a commercial subnotebook: it's a limited piece of crap foisted upon the poor, starving children of the world. Bringing it up automatically eliminates you from consideration as a serious person.
By the way, one minute of googling yielded the following: TOTAL unit sales for Asus models was 1.7 million. You do realize they -- as in Acer, the parent company -- make more than the Eee PC, right? And Asus officials say directly they think Linux is NOT the key to Eee PC sales, right?
http://apcmag.com/linux_not_essential_to_eee_pc...
In that article, Asus officials are QUOTED as saying they sold 600,000 Eee PCs last year.
__600,000__
What a frickin' luser you are.
And of those users, MOST ARE DUMPING LINUX:
"Don’t bet on it, says Hugo Ortega, principal of Tegatech, a distributor that handles the Eee alongside competing devices such as HP’s 2133 Mini-Note PC and ultra-mobile PCs (UMPCs) that run Windows XP and Vista and range well past the $3000 mark.
“The HP 2133s are outselling the Eee PC 20 to 1,” Ortega says, “and Linux only accounts for probably 20% of Eee PC sales and less than 5% of overall UMPC sales. The fact that there’s a $500 notebook out there is a big plus, but we find most [buyers] are more than happy to use a license in their office to upgrade them to [Windows] XP.” "
Wow. What a source of misinformation you are, julian.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Newsentry.153+M507... "Asus raised the sales expectations of the Eee PC from 3.8 million to 5 million sold devices at the beginning of 2008. Now, Chen expects this numbers to rise again, but he did not tell how much."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASUS_Eee_PC#Sales
"According to DigiTimes, 1.7 million devices were shipped in the first half of 2008, which was 300 000 less than expected'
The figure of 600,000 units sold in 2007 is interesting because the Eee PC only launched In October in Taiwan and globally in November. 600,000 sales in 10 weeks for a new product is not so bad ;-)
As for Asus' total global PC sales, the point you missed is that they have more than doubled since the Eee PC arrived. According to Gartner http://eeepc.net/pc-sales-continue-to-grow-than... they shipped 1.3 million units (total PC sales) in quarter 2 of 2008 alone. A 159% rise on Q2 2007.
If they sell 5 million Eee Pcs in 2008 and according to your non-definitive speculating source only 20% of those have Linux I calculate, by the awesome power of advanced maths, that will be 1 Linux million Eee PCs expected to be sold in addition to the 600,000 Linux based models sold in 2007.
But thank you for accusing me of being misleading while getting it badly wrong yourself. ;-)
Re: what OS people choose when they buy an Eee PC and what they do with it afterwards:
In many markets the Eee PC has been sold with different SSD (flash drive) sizes and RAM for XP and Linux and at different prices. On some models buying Linux means saving money and getting a 20 GB drive instead of 12 GB. On other models the Linux version costs more but has less RAM and a smaller SDD.
Like any other PC it's hard to tell what people do with it after sale. If I wanted an Eee PC 1000 I'd buy the XP model, if I wanted one of the smaller models I'd buy the Linux version. Both decisions based on cost and hardware, not the OS. I'd probably install Debian on either, so neither would have the OS supplied by the manufacturer.
As for the OLPC if it's not commercial then is it free? Or do organisations have to pay for it? If a government purchases 200,000 HP desktops and XP licenses for their offices and schools would you call that non-commercial too?
Also, you fail the truth test by not providing the actual quote from one of the articles:
"Among the 5 brands, Asus enjoyed the largest growth with a total sale of 1.3 million PC units shipped. "
Um, dude, Asus sells more than just the Eee PC! Your own quoted article contracts your statements. What is it -- 5 million? 1.3 million?
Oh, wait, it's 600,000 for the last 12 months for the EEE PC -- not for 2007. Selective reading on your part: you didn't notice the article you dis was dated TWO WEEKS AGO:
http://apcmag.com/linux_not_essential_to_eee_pc...
And, finally, you may want to take a remedial reading course: in the real world, SHIPPING a produce isn't the same as SELLING it. The way the market has tuned into a consignment world, the number shipped is worthless.
And getting back to your poor reading comprehension skills: yeah, government is PRETTY MUCH THE DEFINITION OF NONCOMMERCIAL. Yeeks.
"But thank you for accusing me of being misleading while getting it badly wrong yourself. ;-)"
Sorry: I nailed it. You are pathetically wrong, but what makes it so pathetic is that you're a luser who can't see their own delusions.
"ASUS sold more than 600,000 Eee PCs last year, and is targeting sales of 5 million this year"
The Eee PC was released in Taiwan at the end of October 2007 and globally in November. And *you* are accusing *me* of selective reading and being misleading!
You're a moron.
Yes Asus sold 1.3 million Pcs of all descriptions last year. And since the Eee PC was released their sales have increased massively, with Q2 results 2008 vs Q2 results 2007 showing the 159% increase. They project sales of the Eee PC alone to reach 5 million units in 2008.
If you have trouble understanding the difference between months, quarters and years that's your problem. If you can't understand that last year's sales don't equate to this years sales and they have are massively different again that's your problem. The Eee PC is massively cheaper than their other PC products and it's selling in massively bigger numbers accordingly.
You're a moron.
As for commercial or non-commercial: again you're a fucking moron. Have you had a lobotomy or have you always been this stupid? If HP or Dell or Asus or anybody make a sale of hardware and accompanying software license to a government do you think they, as suppliers, regard this as non-commercial? If Dell sell one PC via direct sales to a member of the public is this some sort of domestic activity rather than commercial? Do you really think commercial means only business to business?
You're an incredibly stupid person but please keep going. My other hobbies include stealing candy from babies and shooting fish in a barrel so this makes for a nice easy warm up.
"If HP or Dell or Asus or anybody make a sale of hardware and accompanying software license to a government do you think they, as suppliers, regard this as non-commercial?"
Yes, they do. Governmental sales are a totally different sales channel with totally different rules, like bidding and RFPs. A GOVERNMENTAL SALE IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF A NONCOMMERCIAL SALE.
You'd better step away from your mom and dad's water heater next to your basement abode; the fumes from the gas leak is making you dumber by the minute.
Commerce = the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place
synonym = Business
Business, commerce, trade, industry, traffic mean activity concerned with the supplying and distribution of commodities.
(merriam-webster)
Selling stuff is commercial, whether the end user is a company or a government.
You're a fucking moron.
Yes there's a difference between running XP and running Linux on the Eee PC. According to your linked speculation about 80% of Eee PCs run XP and 20% run Linux. Projected total sales of Eee PC for 2008 are expected, by Asus, to be 5 million. 20% of 5 million makes 1 million. Is this too technical for you? It's all there in previous posts. Are you fucking illiterate, innumerate or both?
You're a fucking moron.
p.s. are you a spam bot?
However, don't you feel a little hypocritical when you essentially call people idiots even though you are using projected numbers in an attempt to debunk claims using real numbers?
I didn't present the projected numbers as anything other than projections. If we go back to the original point it was me stating that the Eee PC with Linux has sold millions and getting a load of verbal abuse for having the made the mistake of saying something which is true, and taking more crap by demonstrating it's true, with real actual numbers, to a couple of idiots who apparently can't count to 12, let a lone a million. I don't think that's hypocrisy in any way. Try consulting a dictionary, you seem to have an IQ over 70 which makes you the exception round here, so use it.
Which is not government. I don't know why you're being so dogmatic about insisting government sales are the same as commercial sales. Anyone who has spent a minute in the sales chain knows there is a difference. In the real world, a commercial sale is a reference to the BUYER, not the seller. Educational and government channels are totally different than commercial channels. What, you think a school district or local government unit walks into a Best Buy with credit card in hand? IT DON'T WORK THAT WAY.
That's OK. It looks like everyone here has you figured out for the luser you are, so slink on back to slashdot for today's circle jerk. Maybe Taco will give you a reacharound since you've been a good luser.
You are an unbelievable fucking idiot.
And this is why you are a luser. It DOES matter to the vendor. It matters a lot. There is a reason why firms specialize in different channels, why IBM goes after the enterprise and why Best Buy's Geek Squad goes after home and small-business users, why some firms work with nonprofits and some work with governments and deal with the often arcane purchasing criteria. On a practical level, the purchasing criteria for a government or school are fixed and it's up to you to meet their standards; I note you didn't answer my question about whether you really think a city manager or a school district walks into a Best Buy, credit card in hand, to make large purchases. (Of course they don't; admit it.) If you cannot, truly not understand why not every customer is the same, it explains why Linux and its advocates are doomed for failure: different customers have different needs and have different methods of procurement. (It also explains why lusers insist Linux is a great desktop OS because it works so well in the supercomputer field. THEY JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE.) But keep on insisting that every customer is exactly the same; repeating it over and over won't make it so.
You can insult me all you want; it's really amateur hour with you involved. I suspect you know deep down you screwed up and can't acknowledge it. But that's OK; it's that stubbornness and total lack of common sense that keeps Linux afloat.
You are a fucking moron.
Wait for the popping noise before you post again.
Using exciting phrases like "vendor ecosystem" is probably very satisfying but a sale is a sale is a sale. As long as the vendor is selling, ideally at a profit, he's in business, i.e. commerce. that's the same for free software, proprietary software, butchers bakers and candlestick makers.
You're an asshole.
Wait for the popping noise.
Nor do you have a brain.
Perhaps you believe you're talking to a product manager from Novell or IBM or Canonical?
No, I'm talking to someone who doesn't know shit about vendor channels.
Using exciting phrases like "vendor ecosystem" is probably very satisfying but a sale is a sale is a sale.
LMAO! Yeah, you just keep telling yourself that, amateur hour. Try selling to government buyers in the same way that you sell to retailers. Just watching you try to cut through the red tape without slitting your wrists would be amusing...
You're an asshole.
Was that supposed to hurt? LMFAO! C'mon, let's see some real anger, Francis ...
Wait for the popping noise.
Sorry, you don't have any more brain cells left to die.
twat.
No, douchebag, selling to different customers requires going through different channels, and each of the channels have their own rules. Companies like Microsoft treat government customers very differently than resellers, OEMs, retailers, etc, because the rules are very different. Government customers often require a long qualification process.
But whatever, genius. I'm done arguing with you. /fuckoff
twat.
Yeah, that's right, fat boy. Your girlfriend or wife's twat: It's ... just ... what I do (or course, don't sweat it. I used a condom).
Yes therea re different sales channels for retailers, OEMs, governments etc. And when they successfully win that contract or make that sale, that's commerce. The government is in procurement and the vendor is in business. Selling goods and/or services to make a profit is called C O M M E R C E.
You're an idiot with a tiny dick.
Your girlfriend doesn't think so, fat boy. I did her every way possible, while you were fucking around with your crappy FOSS software, trying to get it all to work. See, that's the primary benefit of using Windows and OS X: Extra TIME. Lots of it. Which leaves me free to fuck your girlfriend. ;-p
But it must be *really* small because she didn't notice anything.
Or are you perhaps confusing the concept of "A Woman" with "Mrs Palm & Her Five Lovely Daughters"?
I think we should be told.
If I want feedback from my personal cum dumpster, I'll ask, myself. Meanwhile, enjoy sloppy seconds.
Rrrrright. The sound of your last brain cell dying...
Could be quite a chorus in the playground :-)
Link or it didn't happen.
Yeah, me also - I just download binaries from the official sites and unpack to home directory. Thats so easy that every linux hater should manage to do this...
IMHO, centralized package repositories and system-wide package management seems highly unreliable, given the kind of "openness" they have to live with. Windows' way, and its "dll hell" (which I fail to see) doesn't seem to be causing any problem to most of the applications! but then again, Windows applications usually have ONE single executable for ALL windows editions since either win95 or win2k, and that's because of 9x-nt differences which had been there since nearly the beginning.
Winconnect or xpunlimited are a good option.
Tech blog? It's just some guy bitching.
Rrrrright. Then WTF is he bitching about? Tabloid news? The price of oil? No, dumbfuck. He's bitching about Linux tech. Thank you for playing.
You're right, he's bitching. Unfortunatly he can't present anything worth reading while he's on his period.
The common desktop user is technologically ignorant, incredibally cocky, and an all around dick when he thinks he's unidentifiable. So you've heard of linux. So you're on a "tech blog." That doesn't make you any less of a dick. It does make you like 95% of the people on the internet. Congradulations!!! You're the 100,000,000th asshole to connect to an ISP. You've won a free lesson on how to be a troll. Google "internet Troll" to claim your prize.
*Sigh* and i'm just as bad for playing your little game. Peace.
What I like better is your attitude towards the whole thing. You add little unprofessional comments such as "Look Ma! No compiler! Imagine that." and "Thanks for playing."
You obviously aren't taking this as serious as Aaron Toponchebag. This makes you look like the cocky, care free guy that's right and knows what he's talking about, while the other kid just looks like the angry zit-faced nerd that thinks he's trying to prove something. You are probably out on the beach surfing, or having fun somewhere while he sits around trying to find things that make linux better than windows.
Matter of fact, I'm going to follow your lead, and get off this stupid computer. Both OS's are useless and only waste my valuable time.
Time to go surfing!
Get a load of this slice of whine and lame from "Enrique":
"Pompous me? It is not I who says "Look at this URL, that is what _we_ think of you blablabla". Who we? I repeat, who do you think you are? You won't look any more adult by just calling me names."
What the fuck is that? "Who do you think you are?"? "calling me names"??? What a whiny little bitch. Fuck this noise. This steaming shitpile isn't even worth trolling.
I'm a linux/OSS lover, and I think you point the right weakness of this world !
Well very interesting and amazing to read.
+
Well done! You missed the whole point! Congratulations!
Apparently it doesn't matter how SHIT Linux is, if it's more "free" then that equals BETTER.
FREE-ER = BETTER
And this is exactly why:
RETARD + FREE = FREETARD
http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/2008/06/good-so...
"Projects like the kernel and firefox are exceptions in a sea full of shitty projects. They are how open source projects should be run. "
http://gizmodo.com/5035456/blue-screen-of-death...
The reliability of PC hardware hasn't exactly been improving these last few years.
I wonder why they weren't running Red Flag Linux, or whatever the Chinese are supposed to have..
"I wonder why they weren't running Red Flag Linux, or whatever the Chinese are supposed to have."
The hardware is from Lenovo. And Lenvo recommends Windows for the most of their Systems. Linux based systems are not yet ready for the average users desktop. Don't get me wrong. Linux(!) is, but the distributions are not.
Lenovo has made the right decision and chosen the most tested hardware/software combination for the job. It's not about love or hate. It's all about getting the job done. No bleeding edge Vista, only well tested (by you, LH, many others and me) XP Systems. Does not really hurt me. I'm sure there are many Linux based servers in the background doing a good job. ;-)
Lets piss away the day replying to a brainless troll, in this case "nobody:nogroup"
Brainless blurting:
If you develop an application with more then one button, you will always find an idiot for pressing the wrong one.
This is a very common attitude among immature and self righteous freetards. According to Stallmanites and other similar pond scum, the user deserves no respect, and the programmer doesn't have to strain themselves to understand the user's point of view, and the user's universe of concepts. Like a retarded new-age fingerpainting class, the programmer is "free" to implement whatever garbage he feels like, and then, in the typical fashion of an arrogant, petulant little hippie, expects people to make use of the pile of dogshit he just produced.
This, on its own, isn't a problem if the programmer just wants to amuse himself or experiment with something. The problem arises when freetards start claiming that some broken tech demo is ready for people to use. Where linux really fucks itself over, shooting itself in the foot with a minigun, it that this ends up indirectly hurting the reputations of those very rare, actually competent open source programmers who make useful things that treat the user like a thinking, intelligent being, and not a moron.
Another idiotic quote:
Windows is always good for a laugh: (Reference to the BSoD at the olympic opening ceremony)
Dear Mr. Megadouche,
Linux never crashes, all its software works perfectly, and when there is a problem, there is a helpful staff of several million monkey devtard "programmers" around the world making "all bugs shallow", all of whom are courteous and polite, and will consider your problem thoughtfully, and provide a response, if not a solution within 2 business days.
If you believe that, I know a couple of Nigerian princes who would like to talk to you.
Wanker.
Incoming moaning on em0. Should we let it pass? You deserve all
our respect. We don't want to overwhelm you with details. Just make
your choice and we wish you happy computing. Thanks for using our
software.
|cancel| |allow|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAY. Got some new sort off troll out off his hole. Warning thecodewitch
tries an u-turn in discussion. Should we allow his woolgathering? We
don't want to overwhelm you with details. Just make your choice and
we wish you happy computing. Thanks for using our software.
|cancel| |allow|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"According to Stallmanites and other similar pond scum" ...what?!?
in the "Stallmanites" words (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html)
"Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this."
@thecodewitch. So when it rains and your head get's wet you blame your shoes, right?
Shut the f.. up.
Everybody likes solving puzzles. So, here is an easy one for you.
Who said that? (Yes, i know you don't know even one of them. So cheating is alowed for you. Go google for them.)
"...treat the user like a thinking, intelligent being, and not a moron."
"If you think your users are idiots, only idiots will use it." (substitute "it" with "your software")
"Let's face it, the average computer user has the brain of a Spider Monkey."
Dear Mr. Wanker,
you should fire the stupid freetard who wrote the e-mail. Our experts LH and TCW have done a serious research.
Linux is unusable, all software running on top of it sucks, and when there is a problem, it is impossible to find somebody around the world to fix it. We finally will use another OS for our mission critical tasks.
The most important results, facts and proofs:
1. Linux crashes so often, that you must build clusters to keep parts of the system up (http://www.top500.org/list/2008/06/100). Even for the price of $100 million there is no soundcard support in the kernel.
2. Never use Linux based webservers, the truth about them is, there is no way to protect them from LAMP infection. Many Power-Users aknowledged that.
3. When it comes to fileserving, you must beware of the "Google Dance" putting heavy load on your server. The problem is called out for SAMBA and is not fixable at the moment. In the next version of the Vista firewall there will be a SMB2 (Samba Melody Blocker 2) feature. But till then you shouldn't use Linux based systems for fileserving.
4. You always have to worry about your system, it is always under attack by an evil group called FSF (Free Software Foundation). FSF is an organisation like Greenpeace, but it's more like an evil GNU. We all know GNUs have supergnu powers and kill penguins "just for fun". These evil hackers are fighting for the freedom of software and break into computers to free all the installed applications. It is not proven by know, but we have a strong suspicion that they are responsible for the missing part in the apple logo. They use a tool called GCC (General Computer Cracker) to HURD your system.
We will not use Linux, Free, Open and NetBaSeD software for our business. It's all crap.
Yours,
staying offline Megadouche
TCW/TH Enterprises
@thecodewitch And now pull the plug, please! If you need a HowTo (documentation), let me know. Since you are not my neighbor, helping you should be ok.
Open source software is an excellent idea. Programmers sharing code and ideas is an excellent idea. I just hate linux for being shithouse, and stallman for giving open source a bad name by trying to turn open source into some sort of retarded commie crusade, which it isn't. Open source is just that - open source, nothing more.
Remote Assistance is for helping noobs fix their crap over the internet.
RDP is for logging into a server and getting serious amounts of work done.
I think the problem that guy was having with RDP and only one user being able to be logged in on a machine running XP Pro is because he was using the wrong OS on the host machine.
XP Pro is a desktop OS, not a server OS. It is meant to be used by a single user at a time. A server version such as Windows 2003 Server or Windows 2008 Server would allow multiple users logged in at the same time, each using their own desktop account on the system.
I have done this. As a matter of fact, I downloaded the RDP client and installed it on an old 233mhz, 64MB ram, WinME machine and connected over a 33.6k dialup connection, to another running 2008 Server. There was always at least one other person logged into the server, besides me, at the same time. We all had our own desktop accounts and whatever any of us did didn't interfere with anyone else. You wouldn't even notice anyone else was logged in, unless they messaged you or something.
I was able to run software through the RDP client that I could never have installed, nevermind run, on the WinME machine (like Firefox 3). I was also able to take advantage of the generous bandwidth available to the host machine and download a lot of large PDF files to the server, that I needed in order to get my work done.
I was able to complete, in a single day, an amount of work that would have taken me a month or longer if I had only the old painfully slow WinME machine and its equally slow dialup connection to deal with.
Also, I have tried to accomplish the same with VNC. I gave up pretty quickly after the VNC viewer caused low resource warnings on the WinME client machine, not to mention how much slower it was to do anything. For example, there was a serious delay between when I moved my mouse on the client machine and saw the cursor move on the remote server. Too much damn waiting involved to get anything done.
RDP on Windows rocks, when you know how to use it properly.
With a really good server that has the hardware that can handle the load, one can set up a nice system where a bunch of old cheap low end 9x desktop machines connect to the server with RDP to run all the software they need.
You can run the latest & greatest software on old trash that way. It's much cheaper and easier than buying a mid-range to high-end system for every desktop in your business, and then installing seperate copies of all the software needed, and then having to maintain all those systems.
You just need a basic Win9x install on machines you can find in the trash and an RDP client on them...nothing else. Very fast & easy to fix if anything goes wrong on any client machine, and quite cheap to replace if one of them dies.
Maybe it was because I surf the internet with Javascript turned off, by default. I think disqus doesn't like it.
Remote Assistance is for helping noobs fix their crap over the internet.
RDP is for logging into a server and getting serious amounts of work done.
I think the problem that guy was having with RDP and only one user being able to be logged in on a machine running XP Pro is because he was using the wrong OS on the host machine.
XP Pro is a desktop OS, not a server OS. It is meant to be used by a single user at a time. A server version such as Windows 2003 Server or Windows 2008 Server would allow multiple users logged in at the same time, each using their own desktop account on the system.
I have done this. As a matter of fact, I downloaded the RDP client and installed it on an old 233mhz, 64MB ram, WinME machine and connected over a 33.6k dialup connection, to another running 2008 Server. There was always at least one other person logged into the server, besides me, at the same time. We all had our own desktop accounts and whatever any of us did didn't interfere with anyone else. You wouldn't even notice anyone else was logged in, unless they messaged you or something.
I was able to run software through the RDP client that I could never have installed, nevermind run, on the WinME machine (like Firefox 3). I was also able to take advantage of the generous bandwidth available to the host machine and download a lot of large PDF files to the server, that I needed in order to get my work done.
I was able to complete, in a single day, an amount of work that would have taken me a month or longer if I had only the old painfully slow WinME machine and its equally slow dialup connection to deal with.
Also, I have tried to accomplish the same with VNC. I gave up pretty quickly after the VNC viewer caused low resource warnings on the WinME client machine, not to mention how much slower it was to do anything. For example, there was a serious delay between when I moved my mouse on the client machine and saw the cursor move on the remote server. Too much damn waiting involved to get anything done.
RDP on Windows rocks, when you know how to use it properly.
With a really good server that has the hardware that can handle the load, one can set up a nice system where a bunch of old cheap low end 9x desktop machines connect to the server with RDP to run all the software they need.
You can run the latest & greatest software on old trash that way. It's much cheaper and easier than buying a mid-range to high-end system for every desktop in your business, and then installing seperate copies of all the software needed, and then having to maintain all those systems.
You just need a basic Win9x install on machines you can find in the trash and an RDP client on them...nothing else. Very fast & easy to fix if anything goes wrong on any client machine, and quite cheap to replace if one of them dies.
Remote Assistance is for helping noobs fix their crap over the internet.
RDP is for logging into a server and getting serious amounts of work done.
I think the problem that guy was having with RDP and only one user being able to be logged in on a machine running XP Pro is because he was using the wrong OS on the host machine.
XP Pro is a desktop OS, not a server OS. It is meant to be used by a single user at a time. A server version such as Windows 2003 Server or Windows 2008 Server would allow multiple users logged in at the same time, each using their own desktop account on the system.
I have done this. As a matter of fact, I downloaded the RDP client and installed it on an old 233mhz, 64MB ram, WinME machine and connected over a 33.6k dialup connection, to another running 2008 Server. There was always at least one other person logged into the server, besides me, at the same time. We all had our own desktop accounts and whatever any of us did didn't interfere with anyone else. You wouldn't even notice anyone else was logged in, unless they messaged you or something.
I was able to run software through the RDP client that I could never have installed, nevermind run, on the WinME machine (like Firefox 3). I was also able to take advantage of the generous bandwidth available to the host machine and download a lot of large PDF files to the server, that I needed in order to get my work done.
I was able to complete, in a single day, an amount of work that would have taken me a month or longer if I had only the old painfully slow WinME machine and its equally slow dialup connection to deal with.
Also, I have tried to accomplish the same with VNC. I gave up pretty quickly after the VNC viewer caused low resource warnings on the WinME client machine, not to mention how much slower it was to do anything. For example, there was a serious delay between when I moved my mouse on the client machine and saw the cursor move on the remote server. Too much damn waiting involved to get anything done.
RDP on Windows rocks, when you know how to use it properly.
With a really good server that has the hardware that can handle the load, one can set up a nice system where a bunch of old cheap low end 9x desktop machines connect to the server with RDP to run all the software they need.
You can run the latest & greatest software on old trash that way. It's much cheaper and easier than buying a mid-range to high-end system for every desktop in your business, and then installing seperate copies of all the software needed, and then having to maintain all those systems.
You just need a basic Win9x install on machines you can find in the trash and an RDP client on them...nothing else. Very fast & easy to fix if anything goes wrong on any client machine, and quite cheap to replace if one of them dies.
I quite enjoy a lot of the lame attacks by MS fanboys because they're so dumb and fun to torment, and I enjoy the main blogs because they're mostly true, but when I see stuff like Mr Toponce writes I shudder. It's as bad as the ill informed crap from the various pointy headed Windows advocates. It's slightly painful to see someone claiming to be a systems adminstrator of Windows machines who apparently isn't aware of powershell, or much else about Windows or even free software outside of the veil of blindness that is Ubuntu.
It's a shame that this blog is focusing more and more on Ubuntu, which is not (yet) a credible server OS and while popular is hardly used outside of SoHo and home desktop/laptop use. There are millions of GNU/Linux servers and desktops out there which were installed with Slackware, Gentoo or Red Hat or Debian years ago and have just been updated and dist upgraded as required, none of this 6 month release cycle BS, and no excitement.
As for Windows XP anyone who was lucky enough to install it pre SP1 6 or 7 years ago and actually use it knows for sure there was no way anyone got 3 years out of it without some serious fucking problems. SP1 fixed some stuff. XP SP2 was in effect a new OS from the kernel upwards and finally some progress. Still not exactly secure but at least the problems started to lose their Olympic standard comedy status and the OS became stable. XP SP3 seems pretty solid but more demanding on resources than the earlier versions. Finally after 7 years MS gets it right. Obviously there's only one sane course of action from this point. Withdraw it from sale, try to persuade everyone to stop using it and hope everyone buys into the software industry's version of the Titanic. Beauty! Luckily for MS there's not yet a global shortage of dimwits and ze plan is firking ferry vell.
As far as I understood, this blog is about Linux on the desktop. I don't think we care about it on the server, where it seems to be OK.
"As for Windows XP anyone who was lucky enough to install it pre SP1 6 or 7 years ago and actually use it knows for sure there was no way anyone got 3 years out of it without some serious fucking problems. SP1 fixed some stuff. XP SP2 was in effect a new OS from the kernel upwards and finally some progress. Still not exactly secure but at least the problems started to lose their Olympic standard comedy status and the OS became stable."
Good point.
2: Ubuntu isn't the most used desktop. In fact almost every really huge deployment of desktop Linux is of Red Hat or SLED (Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop). This includes huge companies like Audi, Wallmart, Peugot-Citroen etc and entire states like Kerala in India, the schools of Indiana USA...a quick google can find lots of examples. For instance: http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2008/04/deploying-kd... Debian + KDE being deployed on the desktop in Brazilian schools. 53000 school labs servicing 52 million users. Not a typo! That's Fifty Two Million Users and not an Ubuntu installer to be seen.
But never mind, you'll fit in well here with posts like that. Being ignorant, stupid, ill informed and incapable of spelling isn't necessarily the handicap people claim. Have you considered tech journalism, perhaps as a features writer for zdnet?
BTW, Enterprise desktop != home desktop.
52 million is a really fucking big number.
but how do you then measure the penetration ? By the number of downloads ? How do you take the number of people in account that dumped it after a few weeks ?
The tracker doesn't give a correct view in absolute numbers but it's useful when you look at it in percentages since they only count unique IP's per day.
You can't even get a decent measure from web analytics because browser user agent strings could be saying nothing at all or even be set to show as IE on XP. This is fairly common and will remain so as long as a few important web sites only render properly in IE.
A lot of people posting here are convinced that Ubuntu has the biggest install base of desktop distros, but they're forgetting that Linux on the desktop has been around for much longer than Ubuntu's 3 years and some very big players have been winning big enterprise deployments for a long time. These deals aren't a matter of individuals downloading an iso or sharing a CD, it's tens of thousands of installs at a time.
The point of this blog is that, if Linux has to give any competition to the Monopoly of Windows (and its a big Monopoly, more than 80% of Pakistanis who own a computer, have no clue that there is something other that XP or Vista, they have no choice) It has to overcome some problems. Problems like, no proprietary audio/video upfront, resorting to command line so often. How many XP home users u know who resort to command line for anything??
The point is, that Linux is awesome system but there are some basic assumptions needed to be change to be ready for the home users. It needs to assume that every user who uses the system is the dumbest fucker alive on earth. This is what Microsoft does and they have gone to the limits with this policy of theirs, the new visual studios come stacked with Intellisense and other so called programmer friendly features resulting in a growing number of dumb programmers who cannot code without an IDE. This is the route Linux should take, though not to those limits.
And I hope ur small brain can comprehend my writing now.
We hate Linux. And you should too.
I can't see the "desktop" between "hate" and "Linux". Must be a bug in my linux system. OK, lets try OSX. No. Solaris? No. XP? No. Vista? No.
Where can i fill the report for the bug in the LH css file?
Just crap it into your mouth.
Remove the "linux for humans" caption and I'll stop my whining on Ubuntu. Ubuntu is the ultima thule of Linux ego-tripping and as long as they keep sowing this PR and backfiring updates they'll keep harvesting criticism.
Ubuntu is currently the biggest contender for pre-installation on new machines and you know as well as I do that this is a bad service for the consumer. The happy few percentiles that will embrace it will not outweigh the overall majority that will feel screwed as they payed good money for something that they can't work with. They'll realize that the few bucks they saved on buying a system with linux results in an added cost of buying the good OS full-priced a few weeks later ( or having to download it illegally ). You can bet your ass that linux pre-installs are going to result in a very, very bad after-taste for the linsux community once the average consumer gets involved.
Hey, guess what! the other linux distros are for animals!
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=496
And about that home dir, you recreate your EMPTY home dir which is absolutely marvelous. I can do that by hand thank you very much. And all the .* file magic is gone so you might as well start reconfiguring.
ALLAH AKBAR!
This is what LTS releases are for - nothing is changed.
"Wow. I have to know what a kernel module and a terminal command to set up a firewall?"
Nope, there's a GUI frontend for netfilter.
"Thank God! My rogue script only deleted my home directory! I'm so happy it spared my /usr/lib! I just have to reinstall Ubuntu to get my home directory back, right?"
Nope, you can just recreate the directory and be on your merry way.
"Windows lets you install 3rd party software that you download from a website."
You can do this on Ubuntu as well, just download the .deb.
"AND it's not out of date like 10 minutes after it's written, just because someone replaced a working subsystem with something "shiny"."
"But best of all, I don't have to update my entire distro to get Firefox 3. "
Great contradiction here.
"If you had actually designed your system properly, I'd install once, like 4 years ago, and then I'd never care again. "
In case you didn't realize, the LTS releases are meant to be used for a long time. No one is forcing you to upgrade to the newest release.
"
Let's do some math. Let's say I set up XP once 3 years ago, and never had to do any installs, and it took me like 2 hrs to get the base OS and the apps that I use. Now if I had install Ubuntu, I'd be on my 6th update, and all the package downloads and installs takes at least 30 minutes each time, plus fixing the all the shit that broke takes at least (and I'm being super generous here) 10 hrs each time, so we arrive at a grand total of 63 hrs. 63 vs 2. Awesome. Thanks for playing."
You have to reinstall XP every few years to keep it from slowing down, so that's completely wrong.
"Uhh... Remote Assistance? or install a VNC server (hey look! it's FREE!)? Dude, really, you're just starting to make yourself look bad."
What's really funny about this is that there was support for multiple users over RDP in a beta of XP SP2, but it was removed in the final version, because it would violate XP's EULA. Funny how that isn't a problem in Linux.
Except the latest LTS, Hardy Heron. Is full of fucking bugs! Audio doesn't work (and uses 20 sub-systems while it's about it), they've fucked up foreign keyboard support, the wireless manager still doesn't work and a multitude of other bugs. I know this, because I'm using the fucking thing.
You have to reinstall XP every few years to keep it from slowing down, so that's completely wrong.
LH is correct about the time spent upkeeping a Linux installation (certainly an Ubuntu one anyway). All the Freetards who say less time is spent downloading/installing upgrades are fucking liars. Frankly, I don't give a shit about doing updates on any OS, anyone that uses this as a arguing point is an idiot IMO.
Also, Windows vs. Linux updates is not a very fair comparison. Linux updates are for the OS and all installed applications, whereas Windows updates are for the OS and a few MS applications. It's a fucking stupid thing to be arguing about in the first place, both for Freetards and Wintwats.
It's working for me. have you posted a bug report, or stuff like that, With Linux unlike Windose, is a community project, so you can either post the problem to the bug reporting site (already integrated into the OS), or fix the problem your self and contribute back to the community.
"LH is correct about the time spent upkeeping a Linux installation (certainly an Ubuntu one anyway). All the Freetards who say less time is spent downloading/installing upgrades are fucking liars. Frankly, I don't give a shit about doing updates on any OS, anyone that uses this as a arguing point is an idiot IMO."
For a person who know how to reinstall stuff, it's OK, but what about the users, who only use their computer for email, and word processing, it then becomes, not only a waist of time, but also a very expensive piece of equipment.
"Also, Windows vs. Linux updates is not a very fair comparison. Linux updates are for the OS and all installed applications, whereas Windows updates are for the OS and a few MS applications. It's a fucking stupid thing to be arguing about in the first place, both for Freetards and Wintwats."
When reading your post, this put you over the edge of complete insanity. it comes back to my above statement, the less you need to do to maintain it the better off you are and less cost to the consumer.
You Won 3 Aarons.
WorksForMe(tm) is not a valid response. Try going to YouTube, or just go to a site with Flash on it, then try playing a song in Amarok (or playing any audio). Due to the changes in Ubuntu the media player will crash. No, it's not the fault of Flash, it worked in the last version of Ubuntu, so Canonical fucked it up, not Adobe.
have you posted a bug report, or stuff like that,
It's a well known Canonical fuck up with including PulseAudio.
When reading your post, this put you over the edge of complete insanity
Ad-hominem attacks are not valid responses to arguments.
the less you need to do to maintain it the better off you are and less cost to the consumer.
But in Ubuntu you need to do more updating. So what the fuck are you talking about?
I don't use Amarok (it's a KDE app), I use rhythmbox. And WorksForMe(tm)
It's a well known Canonical fuck up with including PulseAudio.,
WorksForMe(tm), no seriously, Linux is about the community, so in other words, you give something to them, they'll give something back. The old saying, You get nothing for free. The Free in Free software, means that you have the right to use, (re)distribute (there's four of them, from stallman)
But in Ubuntu you need to do more updating. So what the fuck are you talking about?
But your updating more then the kernel (a new kernel only comes out every 2-3 months), your updating every bit of software (and drivers) you have installed, by rep. For example, Ubuntu updated you to the new Firefox, the day it was released. Also if you set up your computer correctly, you can automatically preform the updates, without lifting a finger (something that windows can't do).
In short, working for you doesn't equate to not being faulty by design and therefore is irrelevant to his problems.
Post Script
Giving back to the community doesn't mean they give back to you; sometimes they tell you to fuck off in one way or another.
but in all those examples you have a choice, which is the same as Linux, I can pick from a lot of programs, that best fit my experience. Windows, not so much.
"In short, working for you doesn't equate to not being faulty by design and therefore is irrelevant to his problems.
Post Script
Giving back to the community doesn't mean they give back to you; sometimes they tell you to fuck off in one way or another."
but they have already given you something, the program (for free), and a solution to your problem. If you don't like there response, so what, you can correct the programs problems and redistribute it (as long as you attribute the work and keep the derivative open source) the way you want.
Way to miss the point. Additionally, in all these examples you already made a choice and once that choice was made discovered faults that were out of your control. Furthermore, a choice that best fits your needs might not exist. For example, I do not like any of the DVD ripping utilities that I've tried on Linux. Yes, they exist, yes I can use them but I simply do not like them. This is a case of picking the one I hate the least.
"you can correct the programs problems and redistribute it [...]"
Yes, I could do all that just like you, not being satisfied with your airline experience, could launch your own airline and design and build your own jets. It's in the realm of possibility but far from an optimal solution and a very unrealistic expectation. Your expectation for me to invest quite a bit of time and money (all decisions are economic) into implementing my own solution is asinine.
Agreed, but this begs for the question, why not make this standard policy? plus it ties into the issue of packages aquired from an arbitrary website, and not having to update your whole system for a new version of a package, and an inherent strength/weakness of the development/distribution model:
packages are developed and (largely) maintained individually, upstream, new packages, thusly may well depend on newer subsystems, thus requiring the system upgrade, and defeating the purpose of running an LTS release, the point remains that if you're going to be going after the new features/packages either don't use an LTS, or wait for the backport, as well as if you're running an LTS release, you largely can't just download and install an arbitrary dep from an arbitrary website, at least not without expected problems and breakage down the line, again, negating the purpose of going with an LTS.
That's where the contradiction is, you either can install arbitrary debs from outside the repo, or you can run an LTS and not worry about ABI changes and breakage, you can't do both.
"Nope, you can just recreate the directory and be on your merry way"
Agreed, but I suspect the statement was a sarcastic one. the point, i reckon, was a properly designed system wouldn't allow a rogue script to even delete the home directory. I don't think anyone is implying that this is unique to Linux or anything. Largely there hasn't been a means implimented (on any system) to full mitigate such things, though some reasonable half-way attempts have been made: Windows has the ability to restore the system to an earlier state, OS X has time-machine, and the BSDs have jails which prevent damage from occuring outside of them. And Vista has UAC (to be honest, I haven't used Vista, but) I imagine UAC requires express user-interaction to allow a rogue script to be run in the first place.
"You can do this on Ubuntu as well, just download the .deb."
I suspect the point was more that you'd have to download a .deb built expressly for your version of Ubuntu (plus, I don't explicitely recall how apt handles debs installed via dpkg and not from a repo, come update time), if you expect it to install cleanly and not cause problems in the long run, as opposed to, say using a debian deb (on hardy) , or an intrepid deb (on hardy), or a gutsy deb (on hardy), or a RHEL rpm via alien (on hardy). This was the whole reason dependency tracking and distribution-specific repositories were implimented, anyone else remember the early "rpm hell" days?
As opposed to Windows, where you can download an arbitrary exec and expect it to install and run, largely without as hitch, be it on 2k, XP, 2k3, vista, or 2k8, with the obvious forward/backward limitations (a package expressly packaged for an earlier iteration will run on a later one (be it via compatability subsystems, or a largely uniform abi) but a binary packaged expressly for a current iteration (vista, specifically, due to abi changes), quite obviously won't run on an earlier version (but something for 2k3 very well should be expected to run on XP). Or there's OS X self-contained AppDirs, a package designed for Panther, almost universally runs fine on Tiger, for example.
Again, it's a flaw/feature inherent to using shared libraries.
"Great contradiction here."
There's no contradiction, it's an inherent flaw/feature (depending on viewpoint) of using shared libraries, everything depends on everything else, to get the new package, you have to update all of it's dependancies and their dependencies and their dependencies as well, often this leads to a full system update. This isn't the case on other systems, since Windows uses static libraries, OS X uses self-contained AppDirs, and ports/source based systems simply build the new package against existing libraries.
The shit becoming absolete after 10 minutes is obviously exaggerated, but is a feature/flaw (again, based on viewpoint) inherent to the bazaar development model, this isn't much of a problem in more cathederal-like models, since it goes top-down, there's extensive focus on system stability and integration (they're designing a full OS, rather than packaging individually maintained parts into a distribution; resulting in stable ABIs that don't change (until major revisions), with a failsafe/compatability layer set in place, for example Windows impliments multiple paralell subsystems (wow/wo32/sua/sfu/wow64) to handle operation of things build using the legacy subsystems, OS X uses Classic emulation, and FreeBSD uses something similar to the Windows approach (and takes it a step further, with binary compatabily with distinct other OSes, through the Linuxulator, SCOx, and legacy-FreeBSD subsystems).
All the while, the mainline/current ABI remains in a stable and largely unchanging, you can expect something built using the ABI to run from day one until its EoL. Compare that to Linux, where drastic ABI changes in the kernel, between even single point releases end up breaking things being (relatively) commonplace.
"You have to reinstall XP every few years to keep it from slowing down, so that's completely wrong."
No, you really don't. You just need to know enough to defrag regularily and run basic maintenence on a semi-regular basis (clean out cruft, clean out the registry, purge junk you don't need anymore, purge unused dlls left over from uninstalls, etc, etc) It's good practice for any system. Minus the defragging, I do the same on my FreeBSD server and on my Macs, used to do the same on my Linux systems back when I ran them (especially with Gentoo), and have largely prioblem-free systems as a result, the only time I need to "re / install" is OS upgrades/buildworlds.
Just like it's common sense to press the importance of keeping regular backups and not to install random crap (on any system), I like to press the importance of regular system maintenence, even the basics go a long way.
"What's really funny about this is that there was support for multiple users over RDP in a beta of XP SP2, but it was removed in the final version, because it would violate XP's EULA. Funny how that isn't a problem in Linux."
The thing is, remote assistance wasn't meant to be a terminal server (that's what the server editions of Windows are for, see Terminal Services). Remote assistance was, and this may come as a shock, meant to provide... Remote assistance. Think of it, it's a workstation OS, it isn't designed to have multiple users connected to it (as opposed to the server editions, and terminal services.), RDP is designed to allow the netadmin access to individual workstations, as well as remote access to a single workstation, plus there's the caveats of a primarily gui-driven system, where allowing multiple users simultaneous access to the same desktop gets terribly messy. Note that even on Unix, it doesn't work this way, remote users connect to individuals X11 sessions on individual TTys.
It's a design choice. It's not fair, nor particularily wise, to compare remote assistance or VNC to Terminal Services of SSH. They aren't designed for the same purpose. If you're going to make the comparison, make it between OpenSSH and Terminal Services, or between RA/RDP/VNC to RDP/VNV/X11 forwarding (which Windows can do as well, via SUA/SFU).
Developers are supposed to, and are expected to be using the 'beta' versions, that's why they're called developer releases.
Personally, I keep multiple backups of my personal stuff, with the data itself on a networked drive on a machine that isn't internet facing. if my home/my docs directory gets nuked, it's easy to recover the data, if it were to happen, it'd still piss me the hell off.
only if you're a fuck-all stupid as you apparently seem to be. My Dell Inspiron 5300 has the original XP install (with updates, of courese) from four years ago. Very little noticeable slowdown, usually only when booting up. After that, smooth as ever.
From Slashdot -
scribbles89 sends in a story that originally ran in SearchSecurity; it sounds like it could be a game-changer. "While this may seem like any standard security hole, other researchers say that the work is a major breakthrough and there is very little that Microsoft can do to fix the problems. These attacks work differently than other security exploits, as they aren't based on any new Windows vulnerabilities, but instead take advantage of the way Microsoft chose to guard Vista's fundamental architecture. According to Dino Dai Zovi..., 'the genius of this is that it's completely reusable. They have attacks that let them load chosen content to a chosen location with chosen permissions. That's completely game over.'"
Update: 08/08 14:23 GMT by KD : Changed the link, as the story first linked had been lifted without attribution.
Microsoft needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
Most of the people agreeing with LHB have probably forgotten more about Linux than the average Ubuntu freetard will ever know...
In this paper we demonstrated that the memory protection mechanisms available in the latest
versions of Windows are not always effective when it comes to preventing the exploitation of
memory corruption vulnerabilities in browsers. They raise the bar, but the attacker still has a
good chance of being able to bypass them.
[...]
The authors expect these problems to be addressed in future releases of Windows and browser
plugins shipped by third parties.
Hardly 'game over' is it? Fucking freetards, you lot need to stop hugely under-estimating the abilites of our competitors.
Zip has the problem that it requires a list of all files and their compressed sizes to be in the header of the ZIP file. This means that ZIP files cannot be streamed, which can be a very big problem.
That's exactly what happened when you entered this blog and posted that comment.
... {some tumbleweed floats past} ...
In my humble opinion we shouldn't build bridges. LH could jump off them.
If you develop an application with more then one button, you will always find an idiot for pressing the wrong one.
@LH You call it "Linux Hater's" but you mean "Ubuntu Hater's". Some Windows and Ubuntu usability here, nothing else? Where are the facts about linux? What is wrong with linux? The development model, the monolithic kernel, the memory managment, the scheduler, the developers, the community, the supported plattforms,...? Do your homework and give us facts the next time.
Back to the article.
You are talking about "windows automated install". So please tell me how you handle the product keys. I'm really stuck with this. We use here a single product key to install many machines. After the first login we identify the machine by the MAC address and take the right key out off a MAC to product key database. We do this with a cscript an register the machine at Microsoft automatically after changing the product key. And yes, we also own volume licenses. But Microsoft is not willing to convert our OEM licenses to volume licenses.
"Hey BTW, FYI, JIC, for your future reference, you should try googling things before you make claims like this."
Hey, LH perhaps you should try out things before writing your next article.
Oh yes, the Windows firewall rocks! At a Vista presentation (ready for a new day) the speaker said: "...the firewall now even filters outgoing traffic". Wow, i call this innovative. By the way, a firewall is just a single instrument in a security concept. I don't need one on my laptop.
"Thank God! My rogue script only deleted my home directory!" (...)
Thank God! My sons rogue script only deleted his home directory! Got the point now?
"turns out you don't need a separate archiving format and compression format if you support one that does both (zip)."
Do you know why this fails with my personal picture folder. I really would like to have a backup on DVD. Would be hard to loose nearly 3 GB pictures.
LH continues blubbering..."Let's do some math. Let's say I set up XP once 3 years ago, and never had to do any installs, and it took me like 2 hrs to get the base OS and the apps that I use."
Here is some user experience from me as debian user...
Debian woody (Version 3) upgrade to Debian etch (Version 4)
1.) change apt sources took about 3 seconds
perl -pi -e "s,woody,etch,g" /etc/apt/sources.list
2.) download in the background (15 minutes, but the machine is normal usable while downloading)
apt-get update &
3.) Upgrade the system (about 3 minutes watching the screen and 1 minute answering questions)
apt-get dist-upgrade
4.) boot new system
reboot
Bling, bling. Shiny new etch in about 4.5 minutes unproductive time and nothing broken!
Do the math again. How about an article with your experience "Upgrade Windows 2000 to Windows XP" the next time?
And please stop trolling about cscript/wscript whatever scripting language. I know many using it, but not one who likes it. No doubt, the idea behind it is good. The implementation is...
Hey LH, wouldn't a "Perl Hater's" blog be nice too?
I've seen a lot of verbal abuse on Ubuntu. What the author doesn't realize is that Ubuntu is the first distro that all the Windows idiots who are sick of spyware/malware/porn viruses go. Why? Because it's the easiest to install and the easiest transition from Windows. So What? Well that just means that Ubuntu is a leech for all the Windows retards who were stupid enough to let their system get infected in the first place. Let's stop picking on the dumb and ignorant here, shall we?
Though funny, I really wonder why a blog like this exists at all. Nobody is forced him to use linux. So the author wasted a few years of his life on GNU and now he's crying? Sounds like a "freetard" to me.
Anyways, as I've already stated, an OS is a tool. I use Gentoo for my daily needs (internet, email, multimedia, word proccessing, IM, IRC, subtitle editing, translation, and much more). I have an amazing uptime and I rarely run into problems. Learning linux took me several years, but now I've build such a stable OS that it requires no maintenance. Would I recommend it for an average user? God, no! Just stick with Windows. It's not all that bad. Linux for me is more of a learning experience.
That being said, I also dual boot into Windows primarily for gaming. Like I said, an OS is a tool. If it fits your needs, then use it. If it's doesn't, then don't. If you want to bitch about a bunch of people who develop software for free, then you're a kind of a tool yourself. If you want to bitch about the dumb people who use that software, then my IM is monostri. Give me a holla'.
P.S. If you decide to be a fanboy for one OS over another, what you don't is that Linux and Windows are in two completely different classes and are, in some respects, uncomparable.
I forgot about half of what I just wrote, so I should probably stop ranting now. Peace.
I believe the blog was borne of the disappointment felt at trying to help out in the FOSS community, only to find that the Free software development methods aren't all they're cracked up to be. Worse than this, it's marketed by a bunch of spotty Freetards, who keep insisting it's ready for everyone to use on their desktops, when it clearly does not meet everyone's needs.
Feel free to correct me, of course.
Personally, I'm one of the WorksForMe(tm) brigade who happily uses Ubuntu to get their work done. I advocate that everyone should use whatever software they fucking well want to.
Cool. I was right on the wasting his life then bitching about it part. I definitly called it right there.
"Personally, I'm one of the WorksForMe(tm) brigade who happily uses Ubuntu to get their work done. I advocate that everyone should use whatever software they fucking well want to."
Neat, you're not retarded. Here's a cookie.
"Feel free to correct me, of course."
You're right, though one might argue that 99% of the population has never heard the word linux and that this blog is the only media attention linux gets by the common desktop user.
If you think the "common desktop user" spends ANY time WHATSOEVER reading tech blogs, you're the dumbest shitcock on the internet
Or may be he lost his job as he couldn't cope up with the complexities of developing app in Linux based platfroms. He could never let go of his dream of becoming a Software Engineer after having a IT Diploma that teaches how quickly you can develop a nice GUI app (A window with 2 buttons - one exit, one to open a MSgBox) with Visual Basic a world where "dim" lets you create any type of variable.
All was shattered when he had to wrestle with a command line compiler, intricate knowledge of OS and its libraries, No/Minimal standard API, incompitable GUI/Desktop shells.
I guess he called it a quit when his app failed to write to a file, later realizing that the app needs to have proper permission to do so ...
And of course his luser boss fired him who is mater of the Linux zen who can make a device driver work by putting magical lines in conf files or /proc files.
;)
Wow. You're so L337 because you use Gentoo. *yawns*. That's amazing.
Seriously though, I was just giving people an idea of what I use it for. I don't know if it's better / worse than xp, but it's fine for me.
It's just an OS. I don't get how you people can have personal attachments to an operating system. They're just tools. You don't go around doing Phillips vs. Hex, do you?
I would agree. Linux isn't bad as a server OS. I have my doubts, though, that it will EVER be ready for the desktop. What annoys most people here is the near-constant stream of hype (and vitriolic criticism for anyone using an alternate platform) from FOSS advocates that "The Year of the Linux Desktop is Upon Us", the incessant blogs written by bewildered freetards who can't understand why Linux is going nowhere on the desktop, the difficulty involved in developing FOSS applications, atrocious usability, incompatibility, driver and configuration problems, etc, etc. We're tired of the Bullshit (TM).
Hell, a common 'update' on Ubuntu totally fucked up my graphics card, and it must have taken at least 5 hours to fix, having to reinstall the graphics drivers 10 times, learning ctrl alt F2, to get to a fucking command prompt since the entire screen was white.
LinuxHater may or may not hate linux, but he's saying the exact same things that I am thinking and I happen to use/like it ;).
you're no good at english, no wonder you have no friends and substitute with a LUG, you can't communicate!
"Thank God! My rogue script only deleted my home directory! I'm so happy it spared my /usr/lib! I just have to reinstall Ubuntu to get my home directory back, right?"
Are you stupid? So what you say is that Linux is worse because you, by accident, can only delete your home directory and not /usr/lib. Will it displease you less if you could also delete /usr/lib?
Oh, so it is better to reinstall the whole thing _AND_ your backed-up personal files than just doing the latter?
"So, out of the crapware you listed that comes with Linux, the only ones that I could possibly want are OO and pidgin, and guess what, you can get those for Windows. Yay! Zip files? Have you heard of right-click, send to compressed folder? Yay! Tar and bzip? turns out you don't need a separate archiving format and compression format if you support one that does both (zip)."
Hey, big brains, you can also use your divine zip compression format within linux. What are you trying to bitch about here? Tar and bzip... guess what? You can also use them in Windows if you install 3rd party apps... so Windows must be crap too. Stupid you are. You totally missed the point, which was that those 'crapware' come _PREINSTALLED_ with full-featured distros. That is the point, stupid man. You are supposed to bitch staying on subject, not about things pulled out of your ass. Reading comprehension, for God sake.
"... Guess what? Windows lets you install 3rd party software that you download from a website..."
Hey, and what difference is there with, say, ubuntu? Ubuntu let's you click a .deb file from some website and offers you to install it. Ok, let's talk nonsense then! I say Windows XP doesn't let you use your keyboard, and kills kitten, too.
"If you had actually designed your system properly, I'd install once, like 4 years ago, and then I'd never care again." And a first-class deluxe edition stupid person you are. That is exactly what happens when you install things from the repositories. The OS informs you about new versions, and if you choose to, it downloads and updates the apps. Even the entire distro.
The problem with linux is that there are too many different distros and the LSB isn't big enough to standardize many components to be as featureful as Windows XP. If, once again, Ubuntu where the all-dominant distro, 3rd-party software developers would only need to release ubuntu-compatible .deb files, and problem solved.
Then, if you couldn't find an 'ubuntu version' of your desired application, that would mean that the application you want to install ISN'T AVAILABLE YET. It happens with Windows XP sometimes. There is a 'linux' version, but there isn't a Windows port yet. Shit happens.
But no! That is exceptionally difficult for the piece of shit you have for a brain to understand. Of course Linux is full of defects, but you are just like the retard that challenged you.
C'mon, I expected better from a true linux hater. Maybe you secretly are a linux bitch.
Utter bollocks.
No need to be an Einstein to tell how stupid you are.
Good job too, you're no Einstein.
It's obvious, your post was a pile of pretentious bollocks, it was so bad that if you said it in the street some random woman might well appear and slap you one for being such an utter cunt.
So what you say is that Linux is worse because you, by accident, can only delete your home directory and not /usr/lib.
You were completely oblivious to LH's sarcasm here. He's saying it doesn't matter if you can only delete your home directory, as that's still far more catastrophic than deleting your entire installation. Also the average person will just re-install the entire machine to fix the issue.
What are you trying to bitch about here? Tar and bzip... guess what? You can also use them in Windows if you install 3rd party apps... so Windows must be crap too. Stupid you are. You totally missed the point, which was that those 'crapware' come _PREINSTALLED_ with full-featured distros. That is the point, stupid man.
No it's you that's completely missed the point ,'stupid man.' Aaron thePonce was harping on about having three-four different zip utilities and that making Linux fucking great. LH basically said: 'so -- the fuck -- what? Windows has zip.'
And a first-class deluxe edition stupid person you are. That is exactly what happens when you install things from the repositories.
What?! Am just shaking my head here, you've completely mis-understood what LH is saying. He's saying you should be able to install a distro and not have to dist-updgrade it for at least four years.
Please, don't bother replying, you seriously miss the points. Typical fucking Freetard.
The difference is important because a compromised user account on a unix type install hasn't given the attacker the chance to modify any binaries, install any software or even cover their tracks. It's pretty fucking obvious if something's up unless the attacker restricts themselves to simply viewing data but even someone with no suspicions might notice an extra VT being used or file access times that don't make sense. If you have a back up of your /home/user then you simply need to change your user name and password and copy from back up and change ownership to the new account. A similar compromise on a typical XP user results in a lot more work because almost certainly the OS is rooted, binaries modified, new binaries and scripts installed, logs altered and so on. You'd feel pretty nervous about the back up as well.
Assuming you keep your system patched then the most likely way to own someone's account in linux is by social engineering or something like attacking a poorly set up ssh server that allows password authentication (and before anyone bitches again about servers/desktops, having an ssh server running is perfectly normal for secure remote access to desktops).
The typical way to own a Windows machine....well there's quite a choice. And there are so many systems out there where maybe the OS is patched and up to date but the applications aren't, which makes it very easy for someone to jump straight to owning the entire OS by way of vulnerable applications even if the user is running without privileges. For all the arguments about .exe installers vs package management for convenience, it's package management which makes an average Linux based OS more secure than an average Windows OS. btw on XP I use Secunia PSI to monitor for known vulnerable versions of applications because otherwise it's very hard to keep track of it and much too easy to miss something. In Debian I don't have to think about it, it's automatic. Another factor on the social/human side is that unix like systems are actually convenient to use as a restricted user, all the applications are written with that in mind and if you do need temporary root privilege that's also something convenient. But in XP/2000 the temptation is always to run as admin because there are so many applications which require admin privilege to either run or to save settings, and runas is hardly convenient and doesn't work for a lot of stuff. On XP I run as restricted user and I *know* why many people don't.
I think the difference between getting owned on unix type systems and on Windows is that unless you run nix unpatched and/or are catastrophically stupid or careless then someone, an actual human, is going to have to actually work at it to own you. On Windows any one of hundreds of automated tools can do it with no effort from anyone and add you to their happy botnet.
Personally whatever system I was running if my account got owned I'd assume the entire OS was owned too, so the point is a little academic for a home user. For an administrator or for people who share computers using different accounts it's more relevant.
Btw last time I looked at Ubuntu any user could see the contents of any other user's home. How fucked up is that? I followed this up at the numbnuts forums and launchpad and apparently it's to make it easier to share stuff for people too fucked in the head to do it properly.
dist-upgrades etc: What's perceived to be wrong with dist upgrading? Do people running XP not notice those humungous service packs and update roll ups that arrive periodically? Something like SP2 or SP3 is pretty much the equivalent. SP2 certainly brought huge changes and a new kernel, a new set of default settings and so on. SP3 I'm not sure was a new kernel or not but it wasn't a small change on my PC, after completion it left behind several GB of unpacked updates it had used. It took plenty of time and bandwidth as well. Looking at XP it's been 4 distinct releases: XP, XP SP1, XP SP2 and XP SP3. This is over a period of 7 years. To compare that with Debian stable, if you installed in 2001 you would be on...can you guess? yup your 3rd dist upgrade, 4th version since 2001, same as XP. If you'd installed Slackware you could still be getting security patches for the exact same version installed in 2001 (though why anyone would want to do this outside a server or a console based system I'm not sure). Debian is still supporting Sarge a year after the release of Etch, so in fact you even have declined to move to the current stable version and still be supported.
Of course there are other factors but I think this artificial requirement that an OS should be static for 4 years is unrealistic and plain odd. MS won't supply you with patches unless you install the service packs, and why should they? The situation varies a lot between distros but you should realistically expect to be able to run most distro's stable version for 3 years minimum, much less with some and much longer with others. If stuff like this is important it makes sense to check distro policy when choosing what to use.
windows and linux have the same problem
Yes it is. An attacker could, instead of destroying the home directory, subvert the installation, they could do far more damage: infect other users files, setup root services to pump out spam from the moment the machine hits networked mode, infect system files making it harder to dis-infect the machine. Julian does have a point here.
what if someone take your data stored in your home dir?
Please tell me how this is a relevant counter-point to anything Julian has said?
I was attacking the way the op just completely mis-understood what the blog post meant, and acted like an arrogant twunt into the bargain.
Btw last time I looked at Ubuntu any user could see the contents of any other user's home. How fucked up is that?
Yeah, I noticed that. It's weird. I'd be interested to know if that's possible on Windows Vista with a normal -- not Admin -- account.
dist-upgrades etc: What's perceived to be wrong with dist upgrading?
Agreed. Personally I just think this a stupid thing to argue about, Linux and Windows updates aren't even comparable. Remember, acting like a schoolboy here a little: Aaron thePonce started it! :)
There is an overwhelming probability that you could have installed XP 7 years ago and applied all updates and service packs and still be running fine today. You firstly make the laughable decision to compare this with debian stable where the stable branch is completely outdated for normal desktop use. And you ignore the fact that there is an overwhelming probability that had you dist upgraded in place for the past 7 years you wouldn't have a working system today.
Then you have to play semantics with the word static to try and make a point. XP is static in that you can upgrade it in place. Linux is not static in that you are very very lucky if one updgrade in place works let alone a string of 7 years worth of updates.
As someone who moved from 98 to XP in 2002 I don't agree that "There is an overwhelming probability that you could have installed XP 7 years ago and applied all updates and service packs and still be running fine today". Before SP2 XP was outrageously insecure, susceptible to incredibly damaging worms such as sasser and blaster. Corporate firewalls and locked down computers adminstered via domain controllers were no defense. Even a fully patched system could be taken down easily. IE was so insecure that the US govt recommended people not to use it. It was a truly terrible OS in terms of stability and security. Probably the only surviving part of XP today is the familiar interface. *Everything* else important has been fundamentally reworked. The default services are different, the firewall is different, the kernel is different, the web browser is different, there is DEP, WGA etc. These are not small differences accumulated through incremental change, they are fundamental.
I can clearly remember installing XP (purchased boxed original upgrade edition, no service pack) with my PC connected to a cable modem and it being taken down as soon as the network was up, I didn't even finish the install. That didn't change until SP2 arrived.
As for updating, it seems memories are short. Each service pack causes huge problems for many people, not everyone but a lot. The biggest change was moving from SP1 to SP2, essentially a new version of Windows in all but name. I'm not sure it would have been completely impossible to install XP in 2001 and smoothly upgrade to SP3 today but it's extremely unlikely. Plenty of people break either their OS or their applications along the way. Probably fewer of them would get into trouble if they rtfm to find out what is known to get broken before applying an update or service pack but that's people for you. SP2 broke *a lot* of stuff.
Some people have similar troubles dist upgrading a distro as applying a service pack, plenty don't. It's fairly analagous. The less dumb crap you do and the better you understand what you're doing the greater the chance of success but nothing guaranteed. In Windows I found the upgrade from SP2 to SP3 mostly trouble free. But I remember going from XP to SP1 and then to SP2 was not so smooth and both times I slipstreamed the changes to make a new install CD and used that in the end to make clean installs. With distros I went through dist upgrading several versions of Xubuntu with only minor issues (stopped using it because I didn't like 7.10 and realised I might as well use the real thing, Debian) and I've gone from Debian Stable to Testing with the only issue being reconfiguring the touchpad on my laptop.
My laptop with XP got trojaned a few months ago....my fault entirely :-) but that's another story.... so as it's legal and licensed I decided to re-install from restore CDs which are SP1 and I then took it through SP2 and to SP3. It all worked out fine in the end but SP1 to SP2 breaks plenty of stuff with the update mechanism advising uninstalling various things before proceeding. It's worth bearing in mind it can't catch everything, especially custom applications, unknown hardware drivers and lesser known 3rd party applications. This was on a basic OEM system. On a typical install with lots of 3rd party stuff it gets more exciting. SP2 to SP3 was much smoother.
I'm not sure why you think the word static is a semantic trick, the meaning is clear, but whatever makes you happy. I'm impressed by any SoHo desktop user who installed *any* OS 7 years ago and has kept it patched and upgraded all along the way until now. Perhaps someone knows his name and address?
Thanks for playing.
You're an idiot.
Thanks for playing luser.
When I used my XP upgrade CD to upgrade 98 to XP it "Just Didn't Work"(™) so I used the clean install method (where the original 98 CD is required to verify the notional upgrade). When I went from XP to XP SP1 it required a clean install, the in situ upgrade was unsatisfactory. Same with SP1 to SP2. But XP SP2 to SP3 did work absolutely fine. YMMV. Perhaps you can show us your system logs and demonstrate how you seamlessly progressed from XP thru SP1, SP2 to SP3? Can anyone?
Thanks for playing luuuuser.
Oh dear, a moron escaped from the playground.
I'm asking for a single set of logs.
You want a survey of millions of hypothetical people.
You're a fucking idiot.
Kind of fun.
Thanks for playing luser.
Let's see something more than hollow assertions.
You can't show such a simple thing, and apparently nobody else can either, because clearly you haven't managed to do it.
You're an idiot.
You have made the idiotic assertion that a linux dist upgrade is equal to that. It is that idiocy that makes people hate lusers.
There ya go I've turned your little winder. Now you avoid the truth.
As always
Thanks for playing luser.
The process checks current install, fetches updates and additions as appropriate, anything from a small patch to a new kernel, and installs and configures them. Which part of that is beyond your understanding? The only big difference in doing this in Windows is that you also go through a validation process (WGA) and only the OS and MS utilities and signed drivers are updated. With a distro applications are also updated.
Would you care to enlighten us on what else you think is going on? Voodoo magic? You you are as stupid as they come.
It's terrifically exciting to hear you that there are more people like you and that their OS has survived 4 years handling by inbred morons. But please show us all the person who installed 7 years ago and upgraded all the way through the service packs without serious problem (or at all). That's what you claimed and what I asked you to show.
I know why you can't offer a real example, and I know why you don't understand a simple direct question.
It's because you're a fucking idiot.
Meanwhile xp users generally are fully up to date for many years without a fresh install.
Winding...winding....winding...wound. There ya go now avoid.
Thanks for playing luser.
You seem to know nothing about it.
Let me guess your total experience amounts to three weeks with Ubuntu, or maybe nothing at all.
To say that XP users generally don't reinstall is plain stupid. It would be a less stupid thing to say if a) it was true, and b) it was anything more than another of your loudmouth assertions, unsubstantiated and with no credibility.
Even if someone has the sense not to use their XP install as an install/uninstall fest and it upgrades cleanly there are also all the 3rd party applications. Run something like Secunia PSI, you might get a surprise.
You're a moron.
Keep avoiding.
Thanks for playing luser.
You fail it.
*You* can't manage it, but plenty of other people *can* and *do*.
Why can't you manage it?
Because you're a fucking idiot.
No you haven't addressed it.
Windows xp can be updated for years without a reinstall. Linux distros are lucky to make one dist upgrade in tact let alone many years worth of them.
How many people have succesfully updated in place from ubuntu 5-8 or suse 9-11 or fedora 6-9 without reinstalling again? That was the whole point of the static issue.
Ok my little wind up toy. I've turned the winder again. Now you stammer and flail avoiding the truth until it runs out again.
Thanks for playing luser.
You still don't say why. That's bollocks.
"You were completely oblivious to LH's sarcasm here. He's saying it doesn't matter if you can only delete your home directory, as that's still far more catastrophic than deleting your entire installation. Also the average person will just re-install the entire machine to fix the issue."
And how is re-installing the entire machine going to fix the issue? The problem here is lack of backup of personal files. That happens in any OS. It has nothing to do with linux being a good or bad OS. The reasoning of a stupid person. Guess what? Just because it is wrapped in sarcasm doesn't make it any less stupid. He may have a point 'defending' windows xp on that, but it doesn't give you any standing ground to conclude that linux sucks because of that. He 'attacks' Aaron thePonce but shows the same stupidity.
And no, deleting your home directory is not far more catastrophic than deleting your entire installation. If you deleted just your home directory there is no fix in reinstalling the whole OS. It is very stupid to do that. What good would it do? Very stupid of you. Why don't go one step further and buy a whole new computer in that case? That would be just a little more stupid.
"No it's you that's completely missed the point ,'stupid man.' Aaron thePonce was harping on about having three-four different zip utilities and that making Linux fucking great. LH basically said: 'so -- the fuck -- what? Windows has zip.'"
Hey, I also think Aaron's reasoning was far from stellar. But LH didn't just say "nah, you are wrong. Windows doesn't suck on that. It has built-in zip." He also said "Linux sucks because you can use tar and bzip", which are, in his divine opinion, a lesser compression 'format' because its designers, oh my god, designed it taking separation of concerns into account. And that is what makes LH argumentation a stupid one. Linux isn't better because of that, but isn't worse either.
"What?! Am just shaking my head here, you've completely mis-understood what LH is saying. He's saying you should be able to install a distro and not have to dist-updgrade it for at least four years."
And what forces him to dist-upgrade? You can install a distro and not dist-upgrade it, all the same as installing win98 and not having to upgrade it to winxp. Hey, ubuntu is buggy, just the same as winxp. 30 minutes of updates after a fresh install... What is he trying to say here? This is what LH wrote:
"If you had actually designed your system properly, I'd install once, like 4 years ago, and then I'd never care again."
And it is I that shake my head. That is about the only thing 'linux' did perceiveably better than windows, and LH stupidly chooses to go there. Perhaps he really doesn't understand what LTS means, and perhaps he also forgets that these OS don't play by the same rules because to 'dist-upgrade' winxp you have to pay for the new version, so point taken, it isn't nice to be dist-upgrading every 6 months. But hey, for 'linux' it isn't a big of an event to dist-upgrade, so why refrain from upgrading to the latest versions of packages, with fixes, new features, old bugs squashed and the likes? It doesn't make sense to bitch about a product that is released more often than another if:
1. nobody forces you to upgrade
2. the fucking thing is free so it is not the same as, say, shelling 100USD each time.
With most linux distros you even know exactly when the next spin is going to be released. That you cannot have with windows, understandably. And I don't know if that makes Windows suck, but certainly is an area where Linux does better. You would be stupid if you tried to make Windows look as the winner on that one.
"Please, don't bother replying, you seriously miss the points. Typical fucking Freetard."
Oh, so I shouldn't bother just because you said so. Who do you think you are? You are no different than the typical fucking freetards.
Pompous me? It is not I who says "Look at this URL, that is what _we_ think of you blablabla". Who we? I repeat, who do you think you are? You won't look any more adult by just calling me names.
From some of your posts I think maybe you have some knowledge of linux and other IT topics, but then when you just act like a moron and try to insult me (which is fine) without coming with any reasoning (which is not) you only make me think (oh, I can act as a moron too, and say... you only make us think) that you are a complete idiot.
It's the DATA, you dumbfuck. Who gives a rat's ass about your Ubuntu system files or the crap in your /dev folder. That crap can be reinstalled from a Linux setup disc. BUT WHAT YOU CAN'T REPLACE is the fucking DATA, ass clown: The accounting data, the expense reports, the research papers, the email, the calendars, the spreadsheets, the digital photos. In other words, all of the STUFF that makes your computer USEFUL and valuable in the first place. A freshly-installed Linux box is USELESS until you start putting your DATA on it. Get the picture, douchebag? USER DATA is king. OS system files are crap that can be replaced. DATA can't. Word.
Oh, so I shouldn't bother just because you said so.
No. You should stop replying because I said so and because I listed a set of reasons why you were talking out of your arse. Yet here you go again embarrassing yourself.
Look it's not nice to do this to children, but please fuck off back to the kids table. The adults are trying to have a conversation.