How much safer is Ubuntu than windows?
casioc...@gmail.com
I'm using ubuntu and I sure am feeling that it's a lot safer than
windows
1- permissions
2- software comes straight from ubuntu repositories
3- software is open source
What else?
Roy Schestowitz
4-no application 'phones home' without your permission, exposing you not
security threats (not only privacy is compromised). If it were the case, the
source code would make this apparent.
5-there is no flaw-ridden Web browser tied to your built-in file manager
(which cannot be uninstalled).
yttrx
OS doesn't allow ring-zero access to anything that wants it,
say malicious code on a web page.
-----yttrx
Skeets
you son isn't constantly yelling "what's ahppening!!!" or "it's not
working!!!" about every 5-10 minutes.
my bad, you said security, not sanity.
Penguiniator
No anxiety over spyware in the form of "critical updates" that
phones home to verify that your copy is legit. No danger that
your software is tied to a company's fortunes. No clandestine
third party programs that disable your hardware when you
"misuse" "their" music CD's. No malware that turns your computer
into an email zombie or that harvests contacts from your address
book. No mysterious changes in your computer's settings. No
extra charges for bug fixes that are labelled as upgrades. No
help files that are sprinkled liberally with marketting drivel.
No need to reboot every time a new program is installed or
updated. No artificial limitations placed on what you can do
with your software, such as automating tasks, giving away your
software, installing it on as many computers as you want, using
it for commercial and non-commercial purposes. No need to
relearn everything you knew about computers when your software
vendor decides to replace the user interface with one that it
promises will make you a more efficient user. No need to upgrade
your applications just because you decide to upgrade your
operating system. No need to upgrade your operating system just
because you decide to upgrade your applications. And no need to
look over your shoulder while you desperately try to stay ahead
of rapidly approaching hardware obsolescence in the process.
When you learn a program, that knowledge remains valid for a very
long time. File formats and communications protocols are open.
Competition between developers is usually friendly and benefits
everyone, especially end users. Availability of software is
limited less by the financial resources of the user than with
proprietary software. Users have direct access to developers and
can influence the future development of their software.
Technical support is more accessible and better organized than
with proprietary counterparts via FAQ's, how-to's, Usenet, Web
forums, wiki's, IRC channels and email. Help files are more
honest about a program's shortcomings, listing known bugs and
work-arounds for them. And it's fun.
--
regards
sloblocks
...
> 5-there is no flaw-ridden Web browser tied to your built-in file manager
> (which cannot be uninstalled).
Just Firefox; which crashes out regularly, can't support
Flash/Shockwave properly and can lock the whole of X if you try and
play certain RealVideo/Quicktime files.
..other than that it's fine.
--
Lets just say I ordered number two on the menu and I got what I
ordered, Hot and steamy. I would have told the chef where to stick it
only I think that's where it had come from...
AZ Nomad
6- You can actually get work done without having all security disabled.
Root is just for setting up the system, not using it. If an application tries
to overwrite your system, it will be stopped. If an application tries to
install unwanted software, it will be stopped. If an email attachment has
an executable, it won't run. If somehow it could run, it wouldn't be able
to install software or overwrite your system.
AZ Nomad
>Roy Schestowitz presented the following explanation :
>...
>> 5-there is no flaw-ridden Web browser tied to your built-in file manager
>> (which cannot be uninstalled).
>Just Firefox; which crashes out regularly, can't support
>Flash/Shockwave properly and can lock the whole of X if you try and
>play certain RealVideo/Quicktime files.
>..other than that it's fine.
Liar.
Roy Schestowitz
...And if you dare to log in as root, the wallpaper to greet
you will be a minefield (bombs in KDE) while prompts will
slag you off and make your life miserable. Until you learn.
*smile*
Vista, as a basis for comparison (nearly a year before its
actual release), will just nag, nag, nag and nag. I believe
the engineers have made it less of a nagware/promptware by
now, but it contributes to further delays (revisions)...
Best wishes,
Roy
GNU/Linux is beautiful. < http://youtube.com/watch?v=lawkc3jH3ws >
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Othello for Win32/Linux: http://othellomaster.com
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Swap: 1036184k total, 329724k used, 706460k free, 63460k cached
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
Roy Schestowitz
Excellent. I have saved it somewhere from which I can pull it when friends
show reluctance/resistance. I hope you don't mind me blogging about it (with
attribution, of course).
Penguiniator
Not a problem. :^}
--
regards
Kier
> Roy Schestowitz presented the following explanation :
> ...
>
>> 5-there is no flaw-ridden Web browser tied to your built-in file manager
>> (which cannot be uninstalled).
>
> Just Firefox; which crashes out regularly, can't support
> Flash/Shockwave properly and can lock the whole of X if you try and
> play certain RealVideo/Quicktime files.
Haven't noticed that kind of thing much myself, not in the latest,
properly set up version.
>
> ..other than that it's fine.
At least if it crashed, the wholke OS doesn't go with it. And you don't
have to use firefox, there are plenty of others.
--
Kier
Roy Schestowitz
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:35:45 +0000, sloblocks wrote:
>
>> Roy Schestowitz presented the following explanation :
>> ...
>>
>>> 5-there is no flaw-ridden Web browser tied to your built-in file manager
>>> (which cannot be uninstalled).
>>
>> Just Firefox; which crashes out regularly, can't support
>> Flash/Shockwave properly and can lock the whole of X if you try and
>> play certain RealVideo/Quicktime files.
>
> Haven't noticed that kind of thing much myself, not in the latest,
> properly set up version.
sloblock spreads FUD. Better not address the ludicrous claims.
>> ..other than that it's fine.
>
> At least if it crashed, the wholke OS doesn't go with it. And you don't
> have to use firefox, there are plenty of others.
If Firefox ever crashes, it will restore all tabs and
re-fill all the textboxes, almost as though nothing was ever
lost. All that is needed is SessionSaver extension (a must
to many who maintain multiple tabs, close the Web browser,
and resume work later; not just for rare crashes).
Best wishes,
Roy
--
GNU/Linux is beautiful. < http://youtube.com/watch?v=lawkc3jH3ws >
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
roy pts/6 Mon Jul 31 07:26 - 07:26 (00:00)
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
Hadron Quark
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:35:45 +0000, sloblocks wrote:
>
>> Roy Schestowitz presented the following explanation :
>> ...
>>
>>> 5-there is no flaw-ridden Web browser tied to your built-in file manager
>>> (which cannot be uninstalled).
>>
>> Just Firefox; which crashes out regularly, can't support
>> Flash/Shockwave properly and can lock the whole of X if you try and
>> play certain RealVideo/Quicktime files.
>
> Haven't noticed that kind of thing much myself, not in the latest,
> properly set up version.
>
I get constant Flash/Shockwave hiccups with FF1.5 if & when I hit such a site : but
I tend to avoid these sites anyway so not much of an issue.
>>
>> ..other than that it's fine.
>
> At least if it crashed, the wholke OS doesn't go with it. And you don't
> have to use firefox, there are plenty of others.
>
I like FF : the extensions are superb.
> --
> Kier
>
--
sloblocks
> __/ [ Kier ] on Monday 31 July 2006 09:26 \__
>
>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:35:45 +0000, sloblocks wrote:
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz presented the following explanation :
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> 5-there is no flaw-ridden Web browser tied to your built-in file manager
>>>> (which cannot be uninstalled).
>>>
>>> Just Firefox; which crashes out regularly, can't support
>>> Flash/Shockwave properly and can lock the whole of X if you try and
>>> play certain RealVideo/Quicktime files.
>>
>> Haven't noticed that kind of thing much myself, not in the latest,
>> properly set up version.
>
>
> sloblock spreads FUD. Better not address the ludicrous claims.
LOL. Once again once the truth is mentioned I'm branded as a liar.
How typical.
>
>
>>> ..other than that it's fine.
>>
>> At least if it crashed, the wholke OS doesn't go with it. And you don't
>> have to use firefox, there are plenty of others.
It doesn't exactly take the whole OS down, but it often stops Firefox
from reloading again until X is restarted (which is as much of a pain
as a reboot; just quicker). It also stops whatever media player you
have embedded into it from working - generally /that/ requires a
reboot.
>
>
> If Firefox ever crashes, it will restore all tabs and
> re-fill all the textboxes, almost as though nothing was ever
> lost. All that is needed is SessionSaver extension (a must
> to many who maintain multiple tabs, close the Web browser,
> and resume work later; not just for rare crashes).
>
Hmm. so you need an *extension* to make it work properly? lol
--
Environmentalists are much too concerned with planet Earth. Their
geocentric attitude prevents them from seeing the greater picture; lots
of planets are much worse off than Earth is.
Hadron Quark
Is there no way around this? Sometimes amarok stops playing & I have to
reboot to get my sound back. A real pain.
Roy Schestowitz
> sloblocks <slob...@ch4.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Roy Schestowitz has brought this to us :
>>> __/ [ Kier ] on Monday 31 July 2006 09:26 \__
>>>
>>>> <Snip />
>>>>
>>>>> ..other than that it's fine.
>>>> At least if it crashed, the wholke OS doesn't go with it. And you
>>>> don't
>>>> have to use firefox, there are plenty of others.
>>
>> It doesn't exactly take the whole OS down, but it often stops Firefox
>> from reloading again until X is restarted (which is as much of a pain
>> as a reboot; just quicker). It also stops whatever media player you
>> have embedded into it from working - generally /that/ requires a
>> reboot.
>
> Is there no way around this? Sometimes amarok stops playing & I have to
> reboot to get my sound back. A real pain.
Try restarrting the sound server (e.g. arts)
killall HUP artsd && artsd
AZ Nomad
>Vista, as a basis for comparison (nearly a year before its
>actual release), will just nag, nag, nag and nag. I believe
>the engineers have made it less of a nagware/promptware by
>now, but it contributes to further delays (revisions)...
Nag about what? I would expect vista like every microsoft product
before, except w2003 server, it will have it's default user log in as an admin.
AZ Nomad
>Roy Schestowitz has brought this to us :
>> __/ [ Kier ] on Monday 31 July 2006 09:26 \__
>>
>>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:35:45 +0000, sloblocks wrote:
>>>
>>>> Roy Schestowitz presented the following explanation :
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> 5-there is no flaw-ridden Web browser tied to your built-in file manager
>>>>> (which cannot be uninstalled).
>>>>
>>>> Just Firefox; which crashes out regularly, can't support
>>>> Flash/Shockwave properly and can lock the whole of X if you try and
>>>> play certain RealVideo/Quicktime files.
>>>
>>> Haven't noticed that kind of thing much myself, not in the latest,
>>> properly set up version.
>>
>>
>> sloblock spreads FUD. Better not address the ludicrous claims.
>LOL. Once again once the truth is mentioned I'm branded as a liar.
>How typical.
SLobber all you want. What you posted were outright lies.
1) firefox doesn't crash. I've been using it since version 1.0 and have
never seen it crash.
2) it supports flash perfectly. Not only that, but extensions will let
you block the annoying flash ads so common nowadays.
3) It doesn't lock X when you play quicktime. I don't know about realvideo as
I don't watch them. I doubt they lock the system either.
If there was the slightest grain of truth to what you report then others
would have reported it and it would be fixed.
Face it: you are either lying, or have a hardware problem.
Roy Schestowitz
See the following:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/02/1428240
Details on Refining Vista's User Control
While we're at it, also be sure to see:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/26/1523226
Windows Nag Windows to Counter Piracy
Best wishes,
Roy
--
GNU/Linux is beautiful. < http://youtube.com/watch?v=lawkc3jH3ws >
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 136 total, 1 running, 134 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
sloblocks
Yea right. Me and the 1000's of others who *do* have problems with
Firefox.
--
Well, I'll go to the foot of our stairs...
AZ Nomad
>__/ [ AZ Nomad ] on Monday 31 July 2006 14:43 \__
>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:17:17 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
>> <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Vista, as a basis for comparison (nearly a year before its
>>>actual release), will just nag, nag, nag and nag. I believe
>>>the engineers have made it less of a nagware/promptware by
>>>now, but it contributes to further delays (revisions)...
>>
>> Nag about what? I would expect vista like every microsoft product
>> before, except w2003 server, it will have it's default user log in as an
>> admin.
>See the following:
>http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/02/1428240
> Details on Refining Vista's User Control
Damn that's stupid. Microsoft just can't figure out how to have a user do
work without being root/admin.
>While we're at it, also be sure to see:
>http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/26/1523226
> Windows Nag Windows to Counter Piracy
oh, gooody. Microsoft can't allow any software business to thrive without
getting in and that includes spyware. I wonder how long until those
popups include advertising content, based of course on how promptly you make
your payments to MS.
Sinister Midget
> Roy Schestowitz presented the following explanation :
> ...
>
>> 5-there is no flaw-ridden Web browser tied to your built-in file manager
>> (which cannot be uninstalled).
>
> Just Firefox; which crashes out regularly, can't support
> Flash/Shockwave properly and can lock the whole of X if you try and
> play certain RealVideo/Quicktime files.
>
> ..other than that it's fine.
Huh. I've not had that trouble. You must have messed something up or
have poor luck.
Just like Flatfish & the 20,000 Nyms.
--
Linux: A culture of repair.
Windows: A culture of despair.
Roy Schestowitz
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:44:36 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>
>
>>__/ [ AZ Nomad ] on Monday 31 July 2006 14:43 \__
>
>>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:17:17 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
>>> <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Vista, as a basis for comparison (nearly a year before its
>>>>actual release), will just nag, nag, nag and nag. I believe
>>>>the engineers have made it less of a nagware/promptware by
>>>>now, but it contributes to further delays (revisions)...
>>>
>>> Nag about what? I would expect vista like every microsoft product
>>> before, except w2003 server, it will have it's default user log in as an
>>> admin.
>
>>See the following:
>
>>http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/02/1428240
>
>> Details on Refining Vista's User Control
>
> Damn that's stupid. Microsoft just can't figure out how to have a user do
> work without being root/admin.
Actually, Microsoft quite naturally gets its userbase to work as Admin.
Companies and engineers perceive their users and customers as though they
think in the same way. You know... the same state of mind. And Microsoft
sits on the thrown playing God (Admin) with the world.
>>While we're at it, also be sure to see:
>
>>http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/26/1523226
>
>> Windows Nag Windows to Counter Piracy
>
> oh, gooody. Microsoft can't allow any software business to thrive without
> getting in and that includes spyware. I wonder how long until those
> popups include advertising content, based of course on how promptly you
> make your payments to MS.
"How long before they get tired and upgrade to GNU/Linux?" is the question
that crossed my mind.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
GNU/Linux is beautiful. < http://youtube.com/watch?v=lawkc3jH3ws >
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
3:20pm up 11 days 3:35, 10 users, load average: 0.81, 0.78, 0.83
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
Chirag Shukla
Most applications are well-written and you have more control over your
OS and applications than you do on Windows (commensurates with your
point # 3).
Even if you were using your administrative rights temporarily, it would
be unlikely for you to catch a malware from a stupid site. Most malware
aim at Windows. But I suggest using your intuition to decide what site
is stupid and whether or not to visit it anyway.
Hadron Quark
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:21:11 GMT, sloblocks <slob...@ch4.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Roy Schestowitz has brought this to us :
>>> __/ [ Kier ] on Monday 31 July 2006 09:26 \__
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:35:45 +0000, sloblocks wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Roy Schestowitz presented the following explanation :
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> 5-there is no flaw-ridden Web browser tied to your built-in file manager
>>>>>> (which cannot be uninstalled).
>>>>>
>>>>> Just Firefox; which crashes out regularly, can't support
>>>>> Flash/Shockwave properly and can lock the whole of X if you try and
>>>>> play certain RealVideo/Quicktime files.
>>>>
>>>> Haven't noticed that kind of thing much myself, not in the latest,
>>>> properly set up version.
>>>
>>>
>>> sloblock spreads FUD. Better not address the ludicrous claims.
>
>>LOL. Once again once the truth is mentioned I'm branded as a liar.
>>How typical.
>
> SLobber all you want. What you posted were outright lies.
> 1) firefox doesn't crash. I've been using it since version 1.0 and have
> never seen it crash.
Sorry : but it does. It frequently hangs on me - espeically when dealing
with flash or embedded video. Dapper 6.06, FF 1.5. Not so much "crash"
as just sits there not responding - I have to manually kill the process.
> 2) it supports flash perfectly. Not only that, but extensions will let
> you block the annoying flash ads so common nowadays.
Sorry : no. Maybe under windows, but its distinctly dodgy under Ubuntu.
> 3) It doesn't lock X when you play quicktime. I don't know about realvideo as
> I don't watch them. I doubt they lock the system either.
Not the whole server, but there does seem to be a link with my audio
subsystem failing and requiring a reboot and using amarok (which I love)
and/or FF 1.5 with flash.
JEDIDIAH
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:35:45 +0000, sloblocks wrote:
>
>> Roy Schestowitz presented the following explanation :
>> ...
>>
>>> 5-there is no flaw-ridden Web browser tied to your built-in file manager
>>> (which cannot be uninstalled).
>>
>> Just Firefox; which crashes out regularly, can't support
>> Flash/Shockwave properly and can lock the whole of X if you try and
>> play certain RealVideo/Quicktime files.
>
> Haven't noticed that kind of thing much myself, not in the latest,
> properly set up version.
Haven't noticed that sort of thing EVER.
Plugins are a problem in general but that's just one of life's little
tradeoffs. The possibility of losing everything you own really doesn;t
justify the extra little bit of convenience in terms of multimedia plugins.
[deletia]
--
Some people have this nutty idea that in 1997 |||
reading to a hard disk and writing to a hard disk / | \
both at the same time was something worth patenting.
Sinister Midget
slobrains isn't interested in fixes. Otherwise s/h/it would have found
multiple ways to kill/restart processes, restart services, etc.
--
The brain of the average IE user. Divide by five for Outlook.
/
/
.
Mark Kent
Sinister Midget <phydeaux@manly_mail.net> espoused:
> On 2006-07-31, Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> posted something concerning:
>> __/ [ Hadron Quark ] on Monday 31 July 2006 13:27 \__
>>
>>> Is there no way around this? Sometimes amarok stops playing & I have to
>>> reboot to get my sound back. A real pain.
>>
>> Try restarrting the sound server (e.g. arts)
>>
>> killall HUP artsd && artsd
>
> slobrains isn't interested in fixes. Otherwise s/h/it would have found
> multiple ways to kill/restart processes, restart services, etc.
>
I suppose if you're really a windows person, then rebooting is the
"natural" choice.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
You will overcome the attacks of jealous associates.
Hadron Quark
Roy Schestowitz
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Sinister Midget <phydeaux@manly_mail.net> espoused:
>> On 2006-07-31, Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> posted
>> something concerning:
>>> __/ [ Hadron Quark ] on Monday 31 July 2006 13:27 \__
>>>
> <snip>
>>>> Is there no way around this? Sometimes amarok stops playing & I have to
>>>> reboot to get my sound back. A real pain.
>>>
>>> Try restarrting the sound server (e.g. arts)
>>>
>>> killall HUP artsd && artsd
>>
>> slobrains isn't interested in fixes. Otherwise s/h/it would have found
>> multiple ways to kill/restart processes, restart services, etc.
>>
>
> I suppose if you're really a windows person, then rebooting is the
> "natural" choice.
No access to what precedes a certain so-called runlevel? I don't think you
can get config.sys, for example, to have an effect without a reboot. But I'm
not too sure... cmd/command.com were never tools that beg to be used. They
were neglected and made detracted (a mistake which Monad attempts to make up
for).
Best wishes,
Roy
--
GNU/Linux is beautiful. < http://youtube.com/watch?v=lawkc3jH3ws >
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Swap: 1036184k total, 391352k used, 644832k free, 79620k cached
Sinister Midget
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Sinister Midget <phydeaux@manly_mail.net> espoused:
>> On 2006-07-31, Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> posted something concerning:
>>> __/ [ Hadron Quark ] on Monday 31 July 2006 13:27 \__
>>>
><snip>
>>>> Is there no way around this? Sometimes amarok stops playing & I have to
>>>> reboot to get my sound back. A real pain.
>>>
>>> Try restarrting the sound server (e.g. arts)
>>>
>>> killall HUP artsd && artsd
>>
>> slobrains isn't interested in fixes. Otherwise s/h/it would have found
>> multiple ways to kill/restart processes, restart services, etc.
>>
>
> I suppose if you're really a windows person, then rebooting is the
> "natural" choice.
In Windersland, natural == only.
--
Microsoft: The company that made web surfing dangerous.
sloblocks
Well, I'd kind of prefer a system where restarting processes isn't
something you have to get involved in to be able to actually use
something as simple as a webbrowser.
--
SEX is not the answer. SEX is the question and YES is the answer!!
Mark Kent
Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> espoused:
> __/ [ Mark Kent ] on Monday 31 July 2006 16:49 \__
>
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Sinister Midget <phydeaux@manly_mail.net> espoused:
>>> On 2006-07-31, Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> posted
>>> something concerning:
>>>> __/ [ Hadron Quark ] on Monday 31 July 2006 13:27 \__
>>>>
>> <snip>
>>>>> Is there no way around this? Sometimes amarok stops playing & I have to
>>>>> reboot to get my sound back. A real pain.
>>>>
>>>> Try restarrting the sound server (e.g. arts)
>>>>
>>>> killall HUP artsd && artsd
>>>
>>> slobrains isn't interested in fixes. Otherwise s/h/it would have found
>>> multiple ways to kill/restart processes, restart services, etc.
>>>
>>
>> I suppose if you're really a windows person, then rebooting is the
>> "natural" choice.
>
> No access to what precedes a certain so-called runlevel? I don't think you
> can get config.sys, for example, to have an effect without a reboot. But I'm
> not too sure... cmd/command.com were never tools that beg to be used. They
> were neglected and made detracted (a mistake which Monad attempts to make up
> for).
From DOS6 onwards, you could have a choice system in config.sys, so you
could select during the boot process some of the personality of the
machine. This was mainly in order to fine-tune the memory management
around the traditional DOS-related limitations, mostly so that people
could get their favourite games to work.
As you say, there wasn't anything really like runlevels as such. I did
come up with a menu system with some self-modifying aspects, so that it
could default at the /next/ bootup to a different config.sys and
autoexec.bat set of options - this was actually very useful for running
a wide range of software, but in reality, it was a real hack around
fundamental OS problems.
AZ Nomad
Name them.
sloblocks
I guess living your entire life in COLA has blinkered your views. In
case you weren't aware their are other groups available that cover
Linux and there's a surprisingly large number of forums dedicated to
individual distos of Linux.
If you could be bothered to spend a few minutes of your sad life on
these forums/groups, you'd know as well as I and many others do that
there are instability problems with Firefox in Linux, as well as
numerous issues with its handling (or lack of) plugins.
But then again, you'd probably think all others posting with such
problems are liars too.
casioc...@gmail.com
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Kier ] on Monday 31 July 2006 09:26 \__
>
> > On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:35:45 +0000, sloblocks wrote:
> >
> >> Roy Schestowitz presented the following explanation :
> >> ...
> >>
> >>> 5-there is no flaw-ridden Web browser tied to your built-in file manager
> >>> (which cannot be uninstalled).
> >>
> >> Just Firefox; which crashes out regularly, can't support
> >> Flash/Shockwave properly and can lock the whole of X if you try and
> >> play certain RealVideo/Quicktime files.
> >
> > Haven't noticed that kind of thing much myself, not in the latest,
> > properly set up version.
>
>
> sloblock spreads FUD. Better not address the ludicrous claims.
>
>
> >> ..other than that it's fine.
> >
> > At least if it crashed, the wholke OS doesn't go with it. And you don't
> > have to use firefox, there are plenty of others.
>
>
> If Firefox ever crashes, it will restore all tabs and
> re-fill all the textboxes, almost as though nothing was ever
> lost. All that is needed is SessionSaver extension (a must
> to many who maintain multiple tabs, close the Web browser,
> and resume work later; not just for rare crashes).
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Roy
>
I use tab mix plus and it has a session manager.
Kier
> sloblocks <slob...@ch4.co.uk> writes:
>> It doesn't exactly take the whole OS down, but it often stops Firefox
>> from reloading again until X is restarted (which is as much of a pain
>> as a reboot; just quicker). It also stops whatever media player you
>> have embedded into it from working - generally /that/ requires a
>> reboot.
>
> Is there no way around this? Sometimes amarok stops playing & I have to
> reboot to get my sound back. A real pain.
Try just logging out and back in again, I've found that sometimes does the
trick.
--
Kier
--
Kier
Kier
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:32:13 +0000, Sinister Midget wrote:
>
>
>> slobrains isn't interested in fixes. Otherwise s/h/it would have found
>> multiple ways to kill/restart processes, restart services, etc.
>
> As opposed to having it just work under Windows.
Back to gutless trolling again, flats?
--
Kier
Kier
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:21:11 GMT, sloblocks <slob...@ch4.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Roy Schestowitz has brought this to us :
>>> __/ [ Kier ] on Monday 31 July 2006 09:26 \__
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:35:45 +0000, sloblocks wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Roy Schestowitz presented the following explanation :
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> 5-there is no flaw-ridden Web browser tied to your built-in file manager
>>>>>> (which cannot be uninstalled).
>>>>>
>>>>> Just Firefox; which crashes out regularly, can't support
>>>>> Flash/Shockwave properly and can lock the whole of X if you try and
>>>>> play certain RealVideo/Quicktime files.
>>>>
>>>> Haven't noticed that kind of thing much myself, not in the latest,
>>>> properly set up version.
>>>
>>>
>>> sloblock spreads FUD. Better not address the ludicrous claims.
>
>>LOL. Once again once the truth is mentioned I'm branded as a liar.
>>How typical.
>
> SLobber all you want. What you posted were outright lies.
> 1) firefox doesn't crash. I've been using it since version 1.0 and have
> never seen it crash.
I have.
> 2) it supports flash perfectly. Not only that, but extensions will let
> you block the annoying flash ads so common nowadays.
> 3) It doesn't lock X when you play quicktime. I don't know about realvideo as
> I don't watch them. I doubt they lock the system either.
Sometimes they do, yes, but more because of the not quite right setup of
RealPlayer interacting with firefox than any real failure of the browser.
Media plugins can be a bit flaky with it, at least in earlier versions,
I've found.
>
> If there was the slightest grain of truth to what you report then others
> would have reported it and it would be fixed.
>
> Face it: you are either lying, or have a hardware problem.
Could be neither. I've had it happen. Not so often that it's a problem,
but sometimes. Might be my setup, I don't know, but I've seen it fall over
trying to play media content from BBC sites.
--
Kier
William Poaster
>AZ Nomad <azn...@PmunOgeBOX.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:21:11 GMT, sloblocks <slob...@ch4.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Roy Schestowitz has brought this to us :
>>>> __/ [ Kier ] on Monday 31 July 2006 09:26 \__
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:35:45 +0000, sloblocks wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz presented the following explanation :
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5-there is no flaw-ridden Web browser tied to your built-in file manager
>>>>>>> (which cannot be uninstalled).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just Firefox; which crashes out regularly, can't support
>>>>>> Flash/Shockwave properly and can lock the whole of X if you try and
>>>>>> play certain RealVideo/Quicktime files.
>>>>>
>>>>> Haven't noticed that kind of thing much myself, not in the latest,
>>>>> properly set up version.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> sloblock spreads FUD. Better not address the ludicrous claims.
>>
>>>LOL. Once again once the truth is mentioned I'm branded as a liar.
>>>How typical.
>>
>> SLobber all you want. What you posted were outright lies.
>> 1) firefox doesn't crash. I've been using it since version 1.0 and have
>> never seen it crash.
>
>Sorry : but it does. It frequently hangs on me - espeically when dealing
>with flash or embedded video. Dapper 6.06, FF 1.5. Not so much "crash"
>as just sits there not responding - I have to manually kill the process.
Never had that problem with it on SuSE linux.
>> 2) it supports flash perfectly. Not only that, but extensions will let
>> you block the annoying flash ads so common nowadays.
>
>Sorry : no. Maybe under windows, but its distinctly dodgy under Ubuntu.
Not under SuSE.
>> 3) It doesn't lock X when you play quicktime. I don't know about realvideo as
>> I don't watch them. I doubt they lock the system either.
>
>Not the whole server, but there does seem to be a link with my audio
>subsystem failing and requiring a reboot and using amarok (which I love)
>and/or FF 1.5 with flash.
WinErr 001
Windows loaded - System in danger
Remove Windows?
(F) - FFS, YES!
Kier
> I'm not trolling.
Really? Forgive me if I doubt.
>
> I don't think I have ever had a problem with sound under Windows.
>
> Ever.
I have, at times, and I bet lots of other people have too. Because Windows
is *not* the perfect nirvana you've so often tried to paint it as.
>
> Linux?
>
> Alsa has a mind of it's own.
> Then you have applications that try and start arts even after you disable
> it.
> That wreaks havoc.
Arts is on the way out, I believe.
>
> Linux should do itself a favor and settle on ALSA and forget the rest.
> gstreamer
> ecsound
> gstreamer
> arts
> oss
>
> Sound under Linux is a mess.
> Putting ALSA into the kernel has helped a lot, but the other systems
> should be dumped in favor of ALSA.
The gstreamer people would have something to say about that, I think.
Broadly, though, I agree with the rest. It's one of those awkward areas.
When it works it's great, but it can also be a pain.
--
Kier
AZ Nomad
I've had no problem under gentoo, mandrake, or fedora.
In fact, the only system I've had a web browser lock up the entire
system is windows.
>>> 2) it supports flash perfectly. Not only that, but extensions will let
>>> you block the annoying flash ads so common nowadays.
>>
>>Sorry : no. Maybe under windows, but its distinctly dodgy under Ubuntu.
>Not under SuSE.
Or gentoo, mandrake, or fedora.
Hadron Quark
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:24:08 -0400, flatfish+++ wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:08:43 +0100, Kier wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:02:05 -0400, flatfish+++ wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:32:13 +0000, Sinister Midget wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> slobrains isn't interested in fixes. Otherwise s/h/it would have found
>>>>> multiple ways to kill/restart processes, restart services, etc.
>>>>
>>>> As opposed to having it just work under Windows.
>>>
>>> Back to gutless trolling again, flats?
>>
>> I'm not trolling.
>
> Really? Forgive me if I doubt.
>
Sound under Linus *is* a mess. All the super guys who do things for free
are at loggerheads at how to bring it all together. Read the development
blogs. They really dont know which way to turn. For better or for worse.
Install a MM program and go to settings. I know I get confused as to
which engine to use.
>>
>> I don't think I have ever had a problem with sound under Windows.
>>
>> Ever.
>
> I have, at times, and I bet lots of other people have too. Because Windows
> is *not* the perfect nirvana you've so often tried to paint it as.
No it certainly isnt. But there is a standard. Of sorts.
>
>>
>> Linux?
>>
>> Alsa has a mind of it's own.
>> Then you have applications that try and start arts even after you disable
>> it.
>> That wreaks havoc.
>
> Arts is on the way out, I believe.
>
Or knoe? See. Noone knows.
>>
>> Linux should do itself a favor and settle on ALSA and forget the rest.
>> gstreamer
>> ecsound
>> gstreamer
>> arts
>> oss
>>
>> Sound under Linux is a mess.
>> Putting ALSA into the kernel has helped a lot, but the other systems
>> should be dumped in favor of ALSA.
>
> The gstreamer people would have something to say about that, I think.
> Broadly, though, I agree with the rest. It's one of those awkward areas.
> When it works it's great, but it can also be a pain.
So you agree he isnt trolling. Linux sound is a mess. Sorry. But its true.
>
> --
> Kier
>
--
Mark Kent
William Poaster <w...@suse101oss.eu> espoused:
Indeed not. I've not seen it crash in ages. Hangs due to poor
scripting are possible, of course, but a badly written script is not the
fault of the browser. Of course, your troll would probably not accept
that.
Roy Schestowitz
> I use tab mix plus and it has a session manager.
For tabs I have two extensions but one is disabled (they collide).
SessionSaver has a nice session manager, so you can assign settings and tabs
to a 'profile', much like Konqueror does as a Web/FTP/file browser.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
GNU/Linux is beautiful. < http://youtube.com/watch?v=lawkc3jH3ws >
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 127 total, 2 running, 124 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:30:53 -0700, Penguiniator wrote:
> No anxiety over spyware in the form of "critical updates" that
> phones home to verify that your copy is legit.
[and much, much more]
Well said, well done.
T.G.Reaper
>
>I'm using ubuntu and I sure am feeling that it's a lot safer than
>windows
>
>1- permissions
Actually WindowsXP has a much more flexible and finer grained
permission (Access Control) system than what most distros use as
default.
>2- software comes straight from ubuntu repositories
When I install a new Windows system most of my software comes straight
from the server on my LAN, or via a CD selected from my CD case.
>3- software is open source
There are a couple of reasons this isn't a benefit to most people:
1. Most people can't read or use source code so it's availability
certainly is not a direct benefit to them.
2. People who can read source code are usually pretty busy looking at
the code they themselves are working on, at least the very best ones
are. It's unlikely that anyone with enough talent to adequately judge
the quality and correctness of someone else's code, would actually
have the time to really look at, and give a through review of, one
persons code, much less several peoples code. The "many eyes" theory
of software vetting is just a myth.
Open source is an advantage when the orginal vendor doesn't want to
support the software any more. This is an advantage but it's not
really the big advantage that OSS advocates want to portray it as.
>
>What else?
You forgot free (as in beer), it's really about the only Linux
advantage that isn't debatable.
--
Regards
T.G. Reaper
T.G.Reaper
>casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> What else?
>>
>
>OS doesn't allow ring-zero access to anything that wants it,
>say malicious code on a web page.
>
WTF are you talking about? What the hell is "malicious code on a web
page" going to do with ring0 access?
Somehow I doubt that you even actually understand what ring0 code is.
--
Regards
T.G. Reaper
yttrx
Understand it? I've written it. Step back and understand the difference
between the ancient VMS-ey windows NT kernel and the monolithic linux
kernel first, and how each one of them handles the topic at hand.
-----yttrx
T.G.Reaper
wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:45:33 +0100, Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>
>6- You can actually get work done without having all security disabled.
I don't have any problem using my system without admin-rights, it only
seems to be Linux advocates that can't seem to accomplish this, wonder
why that is.
>Root is just for setting up the system, not using it.
True, the same basic rule is true in Windows, the fact that many
Windows users disregard it is the root of the problem. If all Windows
users immediately started routinely logging on using an account that
did not have admin rights, virus's and malware would become almost
nonexistent. Companies who provide antivirus software would suddenly
become almost unnecessary. If I were more conspiracy minded, I might
be tempted to suspect a connection there.
>If an application tries
>to overwrite your system, it will be stopped. If an application tries to
>install unwanted software, it will be stopped. If an email attachment has
>an executable, it won't run. If somehow it could run, it wouldn't be able
>to install software or overwrite your system.
All of that works *exactly* the same way in Windows if the user logs
on without admin rights. See...you've demonstrated why a Windows
system is just as secure as a Linux box, if the Windows user logs on
without admin rights.
--
Regards
T.G. Reaper
T.G.Reaper
wrote:
>
>No clandestine
>third party programs that disable your hardware when you
>"misuse" "their" music CD's.
Let's keep the blame where it belongs, this is Sony's fault not
Microsoft or Windows. Sony installed a "rootkit", and rootkits exist
for Linux, in fact they began in the *nix world hence the name.
>No malware that turns your computer
>into an email zombie or that harvests contacts from your address
>book.
This doesn't happen to me personally, that's because I don't routinely
log on with admin privileges. If all Windows users did the same this
would not be a problem. Isn't that a much easier solution than
changing operating systems?
> No mysterious changes in your computer's settings.
This doesn't happen to me either, if this is happening to you, then
you should find out what's causing it. Magic doesn't apply to
computers, logic and reason are fairly concrete, if something is a
mystery to you, then you haven't investigated it enough.
>No
>extra charges for bug fixes that are labelled as upgrades.
I don't think this is applicable to OSs derived from the NT codebase,
and I don't consider Win9X worthy to be considered as a real operating
system.
>No
>help files that are sprinkled liberally with marketting drivel.
I've not noticed this in the OS help files perhaps you could provide
an example demonstrating what you're referring to.
>No need to reboot every time a new program is installed or
>updated.
While I agree that Windows and apps request a reboot too frequently,
in practical terms it's not really that big an issue
> No artificial limitations placed on what you can do
>with your software, such as automating tasks,
Exactly how does Windows limit you from automating tasks?
>giving away your
>software, installing it on as many computers as you want, using
>it for commercial and non-commercial purposes.
You're perfectly free to give away *your* software (software that
you've written), you're just not free to give away software that other
people have written without their permission. Is there something wrong
with that in your opinion?
>No need to
>relearn everything you knew about computers when your software
>vendor decides to replace the user interface with one that it
>promises will make you a more efficient user.
This sounds like a complaint that should be addressed to a software
vendor. It doesn't seem related to the OS.
> No need to upgrade
>your applications just because you decide to upgrade your
>operating system.
Depends, I don't consider backward compatibility to necessarily be
such a sacred cow. I'd rather sacrifice backward compatibility for
solid improvements in performance, reliability, or security.
Personally I've not seen this, but I've never had to transition from
W9X, as I never used it to begin with.
>No need to upgrade your operating system just
>because you decide to upgrade your applications.
It's a choice, if what you have is doing what you need there is no
reason to upgrade. OTOH if the new version is only available for a
newer OS version, and you need/want that version, then you should
upgrade. This is simply the advance of technology, by your logic
software vendors should be forced to provide versions of their
programs that run on Windows 3.1 now and forever.
>And no need to
>look over your shoulder while you desperately try to stay ahead
>of rapidly approaching hardware obsolescence in the process.
All hardware eventually becomes obsolete, and will be replaced. New
hardware will be appropriate and capable of running what ever OSs are
current at the time. The ability to run a given OS on old hardware
isn't a major selling point that is going to convert a lot of users.
>When you learn a program, that knowledge remains valid for a very
>long time. File formats and communications protocols are open.
I've not noticed an problem in this area, but in any case it sounds
like a app vendor issue, not an OS problem.
>Competition between developers is usually friendly and benefits
>everyone, especially end users.
Okay.
> Availability of software is
>limited less by the financial resources of the user than with
>proprietary software.
The software is free, and worth every penny of it. In general I've
found Windows apps to be much more polished and finished. In Linux
I've actually seen an app that had a "Help" button on the menu bar,
but no actual help attached to the button, none, nada, zero. I'd never
accept that in a Windows app that I paid $39.95 plus shipping and
handling for. In Linux it's okay because it's free, and nobody feels
like doing the boring task of creating help.
>Users have direct access to developers and
>can influence the future development of their software.
That's fine if you have a few thousand users. OTOH if you have several
tens of millions of users with direct access to developers, you will
soon be out of business because developers won't have any time to
actually do any development.
>Technical support is more accessible and better organized than
>with proprietary counterparts via FAQ's, how-to's, Usenet, Web
>forums, wiki's, IRC channels and email.
More accessible is probably true, however better organized is
questionable.
>Help files are more
>honest about a program's shortcomings, listing known bugs and
>work-arounds for them.
ummmm...probably true.
> And it's fun.
I agree, Linux is more fun.
--
Regards
T.G. Reaper
T.G.Reaper
<newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>__/ [ Penguiniator ] on Monday 31 July 2006 01:30 \__
>
>Excellent. I have saved it somewhere from which I can pull it when friends
>show reluctance/resistance. I hope you don't mind me blogging about it (with
>attribution, of course).
You're not very good at objectivity and critical anaylisis are you?
The whole post was all over the map with insinuations and false
assumptions, none of which was backed up by the slightest bit of
evidence. But it's perfect if you don care about protraying the
situation honestly, so I can see why you'd be interested in using it.
--
Regards
T.G. Reaper
GreyCloud
Ring0 access in NT seems to be there when M$ put the GDI inside ring0.
From what I remember in the Seattle Times a long time ago, this is what
got David Cutler fired from M$ where he and Gates got into an argument.
Cutler didn't want GDI in ring0 and Bill did for the sake of
increasing gaming speed. Figures. Then after a bit of time Gates had
to rehire Cutler back because his programmers couldn't finish the job.
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
Penguiniator
>>No
>>help files that are sprinkled liberally with marketting drivel.
>
> I've not noticed this in the OS help files perhaps you could
> provide an example demonstrating what you're referring to.
The help files for notepad and wordpad have thinly veiled
attempts to steer users away from using them and instead
purchasing a more powerful word processor by insinuating that
the user has a need for a more powerful application. They don't
actually mention Microsoft Office in the help file, but most
users are unaware of anything else, or are too afraid to try
anything else.
> Let's keep the blame where it belongs, this is Sony's fault not
> Microsoft or Windows. Sony installed a "rootkit", and rootkits
exist
> for Linux, in fact they began in the *nix world hence the name.
>
If Windows security was worth a damn, Sony would not be able to
install their root kit on so many Windows users machines. And
you blame Sony for taking advantage of a glaring hole in Windows
security, but lay no blame with Microsoft for not patching it?
Please!
> > No artificial limitations placed on what you can do
> >with your software, such as automating tasks,
>
> Exactly how does Windows limit you from automating tasks?
Strictly speaking, it doesn't. However, finding adequate
documentation for wsh and actually doing anything substantial
with it are more painful than they should be. I've come away
with the impression that Microsoft doesn't really want customers
to use automation tools, and certainly does nothing to give
those tools notice.
> >giving away your
> >software, installing it on as many computers as you want,
using
> >it for commercial and non-commercial purposes.
>
> You're perfectly free to give away your software (software that
> you've written), you're just not free to give away software
that other
> people have written without their permission. Is there
something wrong
> with that in your opinion?
Yes. It's like being told that only you can read the book you
bought or that only you can listen to the music you bought, and
only on the one device you originally played it on. I don't like
being told that only I can use the software I purchase. Now, I
have never been one to violate EULA's, and it really pissed off
many of my friends who wanted to swap programs. I don't have a
problem with anyone entering into such an agreement of their own
free will, with full conscious knowledge of the ramifications. I
just don't want to myself. And my point wasn't that there is
something wrong with it, (though I think there is), but that
having a license that specifically guarantees you can freely
engage in sharing of that sort is an advantage.
> >No need to
> >relearn everything you knew about computers when your software
> >vendor decides to replace the user interface with one that it
> >promises will make you a more efficient user.
>
> This sounds like a complaint that should be addressed to a
software
> vendor. It doesn't seem related to the OS.
Microsoft made major changes to the user interface of Windows
from 3 to 95 and wants to do the same for Vista. They also want
to do it with Office.
And since Microsoft is the vendor for both the OS and the office
suite, I don't see a difference in your distinction.
> > No need to upgrade
> >your applications just because you decide to upgrade your
> >operating system.
>
>
> Depends, I don't consider backward compatibility to necessarily
be
> such a sacred cow. I'd rather sacrifice backward compatibility
for
> solid improvements in performance, reliability, or security.
>
> Personally I've not seen this, but I've never had to transition
from
> W9X, as I never used it to begin with.
>
I started using Microsoft software in 1988. I archived many word
processing documents along the way. By 1994 I could no longer
access my oldest data--which was created in Microsoft
software--with then current versions of Microsoft's own
programs.
> >No need to upgrade your operating system just
> >because you decide to upgrade your applications.
>
> It's a choice, if what you have is doing what you need there is
no
> reason to upgrade. OTOH if the new version is only available
for a
> newer OS version, and you need/want that version, then you
should
> upgrade. This is simply the advance of technology, by your
logic
> software vendors should be forced to provide versions of their
> programs that run on Windows 3.1 now and forever.
And in the case of Windows 3, I agree with you; I wouldn't want
to have to support that OS either. And with the incompatible API
changes Microsoft introduces in each version of Windows it
becomes harder for developers to support a broad range of
Windows versions. But the logic hold for Linux. The API's don't
go through sweeping changes that break software. Programs that
ran 15 years ago can still run on today's OS versions, and there
are current versions of the OS that run on 15 year old, and
older, hardware.
Today's Windows versions can't do that. If users want the most
up-to-date releases, say, for security updates, they can't run
it on a computer that is more than eight or nine years old. And
since developers are not going to release new versions of their
programs for versions of Windows with vastly different API's, if
they want current versions of those programs, they will have to
update their OS and their hardware, too.
> All hardware eventually becomes obsolete, and will be replaced.
New
> hardware will be appropriate and capable of running what ever
OSs are
> current at the time. The ability to run a given OS on old
hardware
> isn't a major selling point that is going to convert a lot of
users.
Maybe. The more a user is aware of the hardware/software upgrade
treadmill, the more resentful they become at having to fork over
more and more money for both, just to upgrade one or the other.
That resentment is part of what drove me away from using
Windows. And I'm not the only one who feels that way.
> > Availability of software is
> >limited less by the financial resources of the user than with
> >proprietary software.
>
> The software is free, and worth every penny of it. In general
I've
> found Windows apps to be much more polished and finished. In
Linux
> I've actually seen an app that had a "Help" button on the menu
bar,
> but no actual help attached to the button, none, nada, zero.
I'd never
> accept that in a Windows app that I paid $39.95 plus shipping
and
> handling for. In Linux it's okay because it's free, and nobody
feels
> like doing the boring task of creating help.
I've found that people feel ripped off by proprietary software
vendors when they find out that there are free programs that do
what they need to do and that they could have saved themselves
several hundred dollars had they known in advance.
My experience is that Windows apps look nicer than they really
are. A lot of attention is paid to making it look good, but not
nearly enough is paid to quality where it counts. Not always,
but often enough to make me squeamish about using any commercial
program version lower than 4 or 5.
As for help files, yes that has been a problem with Linux. And it
is being addressed. When I started using it help files were a
luxury. But that is not so much the case today. There are
exceptions, but that is not the rule.
> >Help files are more
> >honest about a program's shortcomings, listing known bugs and
> >work-arounds for them.
>
> ummmm...probably true.
Definitely true. Man pages have a standard section just for
listing bugs and I have seen help files for graphical programs
follow the same format. The point of even mentioning it is that
it helps instill confidence in the credibility of the developer
to see that they are willing to admit shortcomings in their own
programs. It's a refreshing change from commercial vendors that
try to claim their program solves all of your problems with none
of the headaches of the previous version.
--
regards
Hadron Quark
> T.G.Reaper wrote:
>
>
>>>No
>>>help files that are sprinkled liberally with marketting drivel.
>>
>> I've not noticed this in the OS help files perhaps you could
>> provide an example demonstrating what you're referring to.
>
> The help files for notepad and wordpad have thinly veiled
> attempts to steer users away from using them and instead
> purchasing a more powerful word processor by insinuating that
> the user has a need for a more powerful application. They don't
> actually mention Microsoft Office in the help file, but most
> users are unaware of anything else, or are too afraid to try
> anything else.
>
>> Let's keep the blame where it belongs, this is Sony's fault not
>> Microsoft or Windows. Sony installed a "rootkit", and rootkits
> exist
>> for Linux, in fact they began in the *nix world hence the name.
>>
>
> If Windows security was worth a damn, Sony would not be able to
> install their root kit on so many Windows users machines. And
Dont be such a dweeb. You have to change to root or sudo on linux
to compile and *install* from source. Do you read all the C code?
No? Didnt think so.
Penguiniator
> On 30 Jul 2006 15:44:12 -0700, casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
> When I install a new Windows system most of my software comes
> straight from the server on my LAN, or via a CD selected from
> my CD case.
A complete Windows system, including end user applications,
doesn't come in a single package. There is the OS, then there
are the applications. It's nice that you have the convenience of
a server on your LAN to install from. Most people don't.
>>3- software is open source
>
> There are a couple of reasons this isn't a benefit to most
> people:
>
> 1. Most people can't read or use source code so it's
> availability certainly is not a direct benefit to them.
I have to disagree with you here. The availability of the source
code guarantees that the program will not be dragged down with
any company that distributes it. Users will not be orphaned
along with what may be their favorite program.
They don't have to try to figure out ahead of time which program
will be the market leader for a long enough span of time to
justify spending money on the software, for fear that they will
have to do it all over again when the company that sells it goes
belly up.
> Open source is an advantage when the orginal vendor doesn't
> want to support the software any more. This is an advantage but
> it's not really the big advantage that OSS advocates want to
> portray it as.
Most people probably don't care and don't even think about such
things. But I used to use OS/2 and the DeScribe word processor.
The company selling DeScribe went under and quickly took my
favorite word processor with them. Then IBM started trying to
flush the OS/2 user community down the toilet along with the OS.
It was depressing.
I would agree with you if you said that it isn't a big selling
point, because people just think "So what?" But it is a much
bigger advantage than people are generally aware of. Picking the
wrong program can have huge consequences when there is a
possibility that the company selling it will disappear and take
your software with them.
When that happens there is no longer the possibility of obtaining
support, bug fixes, security updates, or updates to maintain
compatibility with the current version of the OS or with other
programs.
--
regards
Penguiniator
>> If Windows security was worth a damn, Sony would not be able
>> to install their root kit on so many Windows users machines.
>> And
>
> Dont be such a dweeb. You have to change to root or sudo on
> linux to compile and *install* from source. Do you read all the
> C code? No? Didnt think so.
There's a big difference between knowingly installing software
from a known source and having it forced on you without your
knowledge. I don't have to read every line of code from a known
developer to know that it's safe to use.
On the other hand, with Sony, I have a much higher need to
scrutinize the "source". But not only do they not provide it,
they also don't give users the option of not installing it! And
Microsoft has been complicit in all of this.
I just don't trust them and I'm not going to use their software.
And if that attitude makes me a dweeb in your book, I really
don't care.
Plonk!
--
regards
Linonut
> Penguiniator <no-...@hosay.ameego> writes:
>
>> If Windows security was worth a damn, Sony would not be able to
>> install their root kit on so many Windows users machines. And
>
> Dont be such a dweeb. You have to change to root or sudo on linux
> to compile and *install* from source. Do you read all the C code?
No, you don't. You can install the application/libraries in your home
area, if you want.
> No? Didnt think so.
Besides, that's the point. You have to change to root to install system
resources.
--
I love the smell of source code compiling in the morning.
It smells like... freedom.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
People who plugged the CD in, and said no to the dialog, didn't know
that Sony was installing software, sony lied to them.
If Ubuntu or whomever lies to it's users in such a way, it *will* be
found out very quickly.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFE139fd90bcYOAWPYRAg+cAJ9R8lpmFwlHckMqLBePPdax+swMGgCgoWN2
/SZdOpcq+NHf8V049iwJXkQ=
=/DxF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows
box, you just need to work on it.
JEDIDIAH
> Sinister Midget explained :
>> On 2006-07-31, Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> posted something
>> concerning:
>>> __/ [ Hadron Quark ] on Monday 31 July 2006 13:27 \__>>>>>> __/ [ Kier ] on Monday 31 July 2006 09:26 \__
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <Snip />
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ..other than that it's fine.
>>>>>>> At least if it crashed, the wholke OS doesn't go with it. And you
>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>> have to use firefox, there are plenty of others.
>>>>>
>>>>> from reloading again until X is restarted (which is as much of a pain
>>>>> as a reboot; just quicker). It also stops whatever media player you
>>>>> have embedded into it from working - generally /that/ requires a
>>>>> reboot.
>>>>
>>>> Is there no way around this? Sometimes amarok stops playing & I have to
>>>> reboot to get my sound back. A real pain.
>>>
>>>
>>> killall HUP artsd && artsd
>>
>> slobrains isn't interested in fixes. Otherwise s/h/it would have found
>> multiple ways to kill/restart processes, restart services, etc.
>
> something you have to get involved in to be able to actually use
> something as simple as a webbrowser.
Then Linux should be FINE for you.
The issue was a PROBLEM. The resolution to that PROBLEM was
to restart the offending component rather than restarting EVERYTHING.
If you are doing anything non-trivial, that could be pretty darn useful
actually.
Rube level automation probably needs to be cleaned up in this
particular instance, but at least it's possible.
--
Oracle... can't live with it... |||
/ | \
can't just replace it with postgres...
JEDIDIAH
> On 30 Jul 2006 15:44:12 -0700, casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>I'm using ubuntu and I sure am feeling that it's a lot safer than
>>windows
>>
>>1- permissions
>
> Actually WindowsXP has a much more flexible and finer grained
> permission (Access Control) system than what most distros use as
> default.
Having a fancy set of ginsu knives is rather meaningless
if they stay in the box for 10 years. Stuff like that needs to
be used and used pervasively by default.
>
>>2- software comes straight from ubuntu repositories
>
> When I install a new Windows system most of my software comes straight
> from the server on my LAN, or via a CD selected from my CD case.
The server on your LAN isn't maintained by a planet full of
people making Win32 software. Your CD collection will require slow
and manual intervention for each piece of software you want to install.
Neither option will give you the equivalent of a google search
page when you are installing software.
[deletia]
2b - Software is not tied to a particular OS installation or location.
I can yank it off the disk, move it around, blow away the OS and
and still use my applications.
Windows would force me to re-install EVERYTHING if I wanted to
wipe and re-install the OS or move a disk with "Program Files"
to a new computer.
At least Apple provides migration tools for this.