Windows in 2020 302
sasha328 writes: "I came across this article on LA Times while I was reading the LinuxToday news site. It is very funny, and points out the in layman's language, the problem with homogeneity in computer OSes. Well worth reading."
Homogeny isn't a bad thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure the resulting discussion about how evil-evil-evil OS homogeny is would be totally different if it were our OS that "won" the great battle for the desktop. We'd all be proudly singing the virtues about how Linux did away with the confusion inherent with supporting multiple platforms, and how it was Linux that prevailed in its design and implementation.
But it's not Linux's supremacy that's being talked about here. It's Windows..And that makes you angry.
Now, before you call me a turncoat, i'll underscore the fact that I love Linux -- I use it on the majority of systems I own, and couldn't live without it -- Regardless of that, I cant help but notice that I've grown increasingly disappointed with the Linux community's almost blind willingness to look down upon Windows as a platform et al, regardless of the fact that for most things, Windows is (nowadays) far easier to deal with from a user's standpoint than Linux us. To some degree, I myself am partly to blame -- I used to hate Microsoft simply because it was fun to, and not based on any real concrete observations. Regardless of how much I like Linux, i'd be lying if I said Microsoft hadn't come a long way in the past year or two in improving the stability and usability of their OS offerings.
The Linux community itself is partly to blame for Microsoft's domination. Its our own partisanship and internal bickering that has prevented Linux from showing a unified face to the world when it came to the desktop -- Had KDE and Gnome merged for the common good, and challenged Microsoft's stronghold on the desktop, we would have probably made it...But instead that challenge ended up being more of separate Gnome vs. Microsoft, then KDE vs. Microsoft battle. We got squashed, and sent home with our tail between our legs. That was our fault, not theirs.
OS homogeny is a wonderful thing if it's your OS they're talking about. Its only when that homogeny is achieved with an OS you don't like that homogeny becomes on par with communism. Ask yourself if your opinion on OS homogeny would be the same if Linux were king of the hill versus Windows. How you answer that question will dictate wether or not you need to re-evaluate your view of the competition.
BTW, thanks to all who visited the site earlier today. It was a good stress test!
Cheers,
Re:Homogeny isn't a bad thing. (Score:2)
Domination by Linux won't happen, because it's too decentralized. That's why a lot of folks hold it up as an ideal. There is no evil corporation with restrictive licenses pushing bug-ridden crap out the door to make a buck and stomp on any competition. If Linux took over, who would run things? Not Bill, but the programmers. Sure, the reporters would all look to Red Hat's CEO for interviews, but he wouldn't run the show any more than he does now.
"If it were our OS that "won" the great battle for the desktop," versions would be released when they were ready. Patches would come out quickly. Software would include things that work, not paperclips. The money that we spend on computers would go towards running them, not into Gates' pocket. Linux isn't going to take over, but it's precisely because of the reasons that it won't that it wouldn't be a bad thing like what we have now.
Re:Homogeny isn't a bad thing. (Score:2, Insightful)
The article's point is that homogeny is bad when there are problems with the operating system that everyone uses. A properly configured desktop system (take a few minutes to turn off unnecessary services and make a firewall! This could even be done by the installer!) can have a lot less security holes than windows (see the honeynet report) - and that's without a paranoid admin (like me - to set up apache to log CRII attacks I had to add the port forwarding to my router, set up the port in the firewall, and change the apache configuration file from a high port to 80 - and this is when the server is unlikely to be cracked, and I would take the same precautions if it was chrooted). On the server side, Apache dominates the market and rarely has security problems (i haven't been watching, but I can't recall any). If Microsoft would make an effort to reduce bugs and security holes, I would have no problems with Windows.
"Windows is (nowadays) far easier to deal with from a user's standpoint than Linux us"
Microsoft has done, overall, a good job with the UI, even if it has it's annoyances, but with the consumer versions of windows up to now, the UI rarely worked for extended periods of time. Also, the linux WMs and desktop environments may not have all MS's research money behind them, but they have a large number of features that make them much easier to use. For example, when I started using konqueror, I was annoyed to find that clicking the middle mouse button would take me to another page that I had recently visited. When I found out why it did that, I was amazed by the power this feature gave me (I can open a plain-text URL in a few seconds now). The Windows UIs may be easy to use for beginners, but that's where they end - everyone is brought down to the beginner level. The KDE and the programs have many features that are an annoyance until you figure them out, at which point each feature is almost a reason to fear having to go back to windows.
I believe these features are the result of the Open Source development model, where applications are frequently created so the author can use them. How many MS programmers are working on windows or office specifically so they can use them, and getting payed and releasing products are just side effects? I have seen this effect numerous times while working on my current OSS project. I will see something that looks good in concept but doesn't work in practice, or i'll notice something that's a bit long to do, and i'll fix it, adding a feature that will be useful in the future. At the current stage (alpha3), the number of features that I though of while using and debugging it probably approaches 50%. MS spends a lot of money to make it's products easier to use, but where they fail is in getting ideas to the developers. I've heard that many features in Office were requested by exactly one person, but Linux (for me, the KDE) has a large number of useful shortcuts that show you that all those cool ideas people have are actually being implemented. I know i'm leaving the topic a bit, but Windows and Office just lack all the shortcuts and tricks that i've found in the month i've been using Linux.
"I used to hate Microsoft simply because it was fun to, and not based on any real concrete observations"
I'm trying not to do this, but even if Microsoft solves all their stability problems (which they are doing) and their security problems (riiiiight), they still lack the shortcuts - that thing that I can't stop talking about. In Outlook, trying to alternate between reading a previewed message and scrolling the list of messages is a real pain - with KMail, I can do both simultaneously (N and P for message-list scrolling, arrow keys for viewing the message). Thanks to this, I don't even need to bother focusing on the message list of the preview to scroll. At MS, if a developer comes up with an idea for a feature, they probably have to submit it to the managers, who may see it as just a waste of time, which they don't have enough of, and refuse to allow it. With Open Source projects, a developer who comes up with a cool idea can implement it right away and complete it before anyone else knows, and it will show up in the next release to amaze users. Spending billions on UI research helps, but I still think nothing beats an efficient path from cool idea at 2 in the morning and implementation. Maybe this is only possible because the developers aren't forced to fit into a release schedule, so they can take their time making the best software i've seen so far.
"i'd be lying if I said Microsoft hadn't come a long way in the past year or two in improving the stability and usability of their OS offerings"
Windows XP sounds like a big improvement, but I don't think I could be bothered to install the release candidate that I have right here. Even without the activation, I wouldn't use it because I know it would cut into my efficiency. That is included in usability - i'd rather have a program that lets me move around fast than a program where I know all the commands and how to do everything.
"Had KDE and Gnome merged for the common good, and challenged Microsoft's stronghold on the desktop," they would have become a monopoly on the Linux desktop. I don't know if there is any competition between the developers themselves, but I'm pretty sure that they do want their project to be the best. Competition is good. Choice is good. A world with only Linux would be bad - not for me, i'm happy for now, but for other people who might preffer the look of applications of another OS (like Mac OS X). It must also create at least a little competition. The comercial developers (Apple and Microsoft) want to get a bigger market share, the open source developers (linux kernel) want to make a better alternative, and the Linux desktop environments want to be the best. They each pull in their own direction, and the harder they pull the better it is for us. Apart from the security risk, we can't accept a monopoly because the owner of the monopoly would have no need to innovate. Microsoft is doing this already - instead of making a better product they kill all the challengers. This is not good for the end users.
I've never considered Windows 9x to be worth anything, but with Linux I want to help support the developers, because there are many useful applications and features. Maybe if Windows was worth something to more people, they wouldn't have to worry so much about piracy. I think Microsoft is going after the symptoms instead of fixing the problem.
"OS homogeny is a wonderful thing if it's your OS they're talking about" homogeny is never good for us. I recently stopped using Evolution because the focusing system was worse than Outlook and it frequently lost my messages. If it was the only mail program, the developers could stop there, knowing everyone was using it. When there is diversity and competition, everyone benefits as they find what's best for them, and the really popular features are frequently spread to all platforms (when your competition comes up with a good idea, you can profit from it and implement it too).
"Ask yourself if your opinion on OS homogeny would be the same if Linux were king of the hill versus Windows"
No. I've already argued a bit too much on the desktop/usability side, let's look at security: IIS is very vulnerable, and should be removed from the Internet or treated as alpha software in my opinion, but even if Apache was uncrackable it shouldn't be the only server. For some people it will be too complicated, and for some people it will be too big. Someone who wouldn't think of contributing to one project might start their own and release it with an amazing new feature that is rapidly spread around and benefits everyone.
but anyways, back to what I was doing 45 minutes ago...
Re:Homogeny isn't a bad thing. (Score:5, Interesting)
You're right about the blind MS bashing -- it's idiotic. Linux is not better than Windows, and Windows is not better than Linux. It's all a matter of what you want to do, and what your personal preferences are.
Homogeny is bad no matter what system it is. There are a few reasons for this. First of all, all the computers running the same OS are potentially vounerable to the same exploits -- whether than OS be Windows, Linux, BSD, Mac, BeOS, Solaris, IRIX, HP-UX, OS/2... you get the idea.
The reason people tend not to realize, though, is that some people have different preferences! Personally, having used Linux for three years, I have decided that I like Win2k better. I am guessing that many people here would disagree with me on that. I don't care, and neither should they. You want to use Linux, use Linux. Fine with me. But I want to use Win2k.
The thing is, the more people use one system, the harder it is for other people to use other systems. If everyone used Win2k except for Linus Torvalds himself, he'd probably have a hard time finding software to run on Linux. If everyone ran Linux except for Bill Gates, he'd have a tough time finding software that ran on Windows. Homogeneity encourages software developers to write non-portable code.
<tangent><rant>
When you write software that isn't portable, you are limiting you users' freedom of choice of operating system. This is bad, no matter what system you are writing for.
I talked to a guy recently who was writing a free (open source, I think) 3D modeller. He was complaining about getting Direct3D and MFC to work together, so I suggested that he use a cross-platform toolkit and OpenGL. That way, I said, his code would be portable. He told me of his personal distaste for Unix, and that he didn't think there was any value in porting his software to it.
I was shocked. I'm sure many of you were, too. But then, how many of you have written non-portable software for Linux? You probably figured Windows sucks, and there was no reason to support it. If so, you were no better than that guy.
Wonderful platforms like BeOS are suffering because people won't write portable code; there is a serious lack of good software for any OS other than Windows, Mac, and Linux (with a few Unix's managing to get easy ports of the Linux stuff). All because people seem to think that there is no reason to support any platform other than their OS of choice.
Sad, isn't it?
Now, being open source does NOT automatically make your software portable! If you use POSIX system calls all over your code (and I'd hate to see your code if you do), porting the thing to Windows would probably be harder than simply re-writing the damned thing from scratch. You must consider portability from the beginning!
I'm not saying that you should personally port your software to every known OS -- that would be impossible -- but make sure you write it in such a way that it can be easily ported. Use portable libraries, and abstract away any system calls you need to make. Then, port it to as many platforms as you have available. If your software is open source, you can rely on the users of the target OS to port your program, provided that you have written it properly. If your software is closed source, you will probably find that porting to alternative OS's is fairly cheap and, in many cases, well worth the money -- again, if your code was written to be portable. Just, please, don't force your users to use *your* preferred OS! Give them a choice!
</rant></tangent>
Re:Homogeny isn't a bad thing. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Homogeny isn't a bad thing. (Score:2)
Posix calls are specificly designed to be portable. If you only make posix calls then you'll be portible to all operating systems, including Windows (which has a posix layer. The Federal government wouldn't buy it if they didn't). In other words your complaint about calls would solve your complain at all.
Re:Homogeny isn't a bad thing. (Score:2)
Re:Homogeny isn't a bad thing. (Score:2)
The "portability standard" you refer to is POSIX. POSIX, IMO, is a rather poorly designed interface. Many of the functions imply slow implementations (like select() -- there is no way to implement select() in a scalable way). And, of course, POSIX has no GUI facilities. I don't think it is reasonable to say that OS's must support POSIX to be "good" OS's. (Win32 has it's own set of problems, of course.)
Re:Homogeny isn't a bad thing. (Score:2)
"Had KDE and Gnome merged for the common good, and challenged Microsoft's stronghold on the desktop, we would have probably made it..."
You're suggesting that we're trying to beat Microsoft at their own game, and that isn't going to happen. Linux is about choice and about diversity, not trying to impose the One True Desktop upon others.
"OS homogeny is a wonderful thing"
Beyond milk and chemical mixtures, the concept of homogeneity in anything gives me cold chills.
Interoperability good, homogeneity bad (Score:2)
* open standards
* with multiple, open implementations
That way, you get interoperability (like the Internet) without the problems that you get with Microsoft-led homogeneity, which is built on
* closed standards
* with single, closed implementations
A world where everyone ran Linux, but no distribution dominated, would be much safer than the current one.
Windows is NOT Homogenous (Score:2)
Valuable advice from the future (Score:3, Funny)
Um, but don't anyone else do it, OK?
Plant the corn? Hah! (Score:4, Funny)
Or, rather, I'm going to sell them to someone else (Kelloggs, whoever makes cornflour, Green Giant etc.) for a vast profit and let them bother with the cloning. I'll just pop in occasionally to make unhelpful comments - "Maybe you should try repairing the freezer damage to the chromosones with frog DNA..."
Ooooh, or now I think about it, I could just buy tinned corn and then I wouldn't have to worry about keeping the freezer running.
Awwww, damnit, I really need to stop telling everyone my ideas...
Re:Plant the corn? Hah! (Score:2)
Are you trying to suggest to me that they can't just clone the Frosted Flakes?
Damn. There goes my idea.
Re:Plant the corn? Hah! (Score:2)
[/me cautiously backs towards the door]
....Y'see, the sugar-frosting DNA would, uh, mix with the corn DNA, and....
SLAM!
[sound of
The Great Microsoft Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The basic tenet of a capitalist, free-enterprise system is that through competition and the invisible hand of supply-demand, products and productivity will constantly improve and thus society as a whole will prosper.
This, obviously, isn't happening.
Microsoft has no strong commercial competitors. AMD and Intel are the only major processor makers for PCs. Nobody can touch Rambus' stuff. No one sells cola at the same price as Coke or Pepsi that is any better. Wizards of the Coast has the only big CCG. The list goes on and on. The fact of the matter is that the large new corps have managed to warp the capitalist system with their own money. Theorectically no one in one of the modern capitalist countries, especially a hardcore capitalist one like America, should be able to strangle the market for their goods like Microsoft does or Rambus almost did - what needs a patch for our problems is not M$ but modern capitalism, and I don't like the way things are going, because in that path the only major wake-up call may turn out to be...
Hacked by Chinese!
{/rant)
economies of scale and externalities (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, you do get economies of scale if you have huge companies. Coca Cola can ship beverages cheaper and more reliably than 10000 local bottling plants all over the country. You do derive benefits from comparative advantage if you have completely open trade.
The problem is that the megacorp approach sacrifices the diversity that underlies a healthy free market just as much as a healthy ecology. In effect, the cheaper soft drink or the cheaper PC is bought by opportunity costs: society and the market lose the ability to adapt to changing conditions quickly because there are no alternative players that can take over. Instead, the leading players need to laboriously restructure and adapt, with all the speed and efficiency of the Soviet (planned) economy.
What can be done about it? Giving the states more autonomy helps. Allowing states and cities to adopt a wide variety of local regulations helps. Taxing interstate and international commerce helps. A progressive taxation system for corporate profits might help. But all of those are fighting words to conservative economists, as well as corporate backed politicians. And such approaches are not without risk of abuse and inherent problems either.
There is something you can do as a customer, though: be aware of the importance of diversity. Buy local, buy from small companies, and buy the non-mainstream product. Pay a little more for the high-quality specialty item. Don't worry about what the Joneses do. Do without, or do something different. Don't make a habit of eating at big chains, watching a lot of TV, etc. In addition too creating economic diversity, your health and your wallet will thank you, too. But don't obsess about it, either: moderate change in a lot of people is far better than obsessive change in a few.
Re:The Great Microsoft Problem (Score:2)
Re:The Great Microsoft Problem (Score:3, Insightful)
secondly, microsoft, coke, wotc, rambus, intel - they're all at the top of their respective markets because they give people what they want. they answer demand. in some cases, they create demand through hammering their product over any media outlet 24/7. the point is, however, they give people what they want. i firmly believe that if microsoft was a worse company, it could not retain its hold, nor could it have gotten there in the first place. linux fails in this regard, totally. this is why, until there is a major revision, linux will be by geeks and for geeks. linux does not answer the demand of a large enough audience for it to rival microsoft, but it has been a success in that, i'd guess, at least 80 % people who it is geared for use it.
that point is one i cannot hammer home enough. microsoft provides software that is easy to navigate, an os which is unparallel in simplicity, and the best web browser that i can think of offhand. amd and intel make beautiful chips at low prices. coke and pepsi have good pop. wotc knows how to make games. that is why the list goes on and on, because those companies are unrivaled in the quality that consumers want.
thirdly, the us is not a pure capitalist state, nor is it enough of one to accuse capitalism for bogging us down. the problem we have is government interference - the ability to destroy competitors who improve on your product, for example, is a particularly ugly piece of legislation designed to protect businesses by stifling innovation.
so, all in all, i don't see a problem from here, unless it's the government. the kind of doomsday scenario given in the article will only happen when linux is wiped off the face of the earth, and it won't be. until then, keep using it, keep improving it. ms does not need a patch - it will die, eventually, if it's not what the people want. and if it is what the people want, then who are you to deny them that?
after all, i personally favor letting idiots not wear their seatbelts so that when they crash into something going 60 mph, their stupidity will be removed from this earth.
Excuse me? (Score:2, Insightful)
firstly, microsoft does not have a stranglehold on the market. Have you ever READ the licence for Microsoft products? Nobody would in their RIGHT mind pay a lot of dollars for a product when there are NO GUARANTEES about whether it works or not, and it also specifically says that the producer is NOT LIABLE for any inherent flaws?
How would you like it if GM made a car with brakes that disintegrated after three months, but could not be sued because of several clauses in the buying contract?
Whether we like tort law or not, it HAS provided increased security for John Average. Poor security not only leads to a questionable reputation, it leads to direct expenses in lawsuit settlements and/or court proceedings.
Contradicting yourself in adjoining sentences. nice stuff. and hey - a much better way of killing yourself in traffic is drinking and driving.
Re:The Great Microsoft Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
This is completely hypothetical competition. Linux only "exists" in the server market, the Mac only "exists" in the DTP market. Everywhere else
By NO competitor, I mean: there is no concurrent product with a non-marginal marketshare, that Microsoft has to compete with, that forces Microsoft to lower prices, or add new features, or improve quality
Re:The Great Microsoft Problem (Score:2)
Ahh, but therein lies the rub. There is no one forcing them to do those things, yet they perversely continue to do them anyway. Why should they do it if they aren't forced to?
I submit that it is because they fear competitors they either can't see, or that don't exist yet. Even in the absence of actual competition, the fear of competition still drives them. In which case, one can hardly accuse them of being unable or unwilling to compete.
Re:The Great Microsoft Problem (Score:2, Interesting)
"Ahh, but therein lies the rub. There is no one forcing them to do those things, yet they perversely continue to do them anyway. Why should they do it if they aren't forced to? "
You can only speculate at what they would be doing if they HAD real competitors. Of course, Windows 2000 is better than Windows 98 is better than Windows 95 is better than Windows 3.11
They also need to ship improved products every year to incite people to upgrade and thus generate a revenue flow. But this is going to change with their planned rented-software strategy (pay each year instead of once). When this is implemented, what will drive them to ship anything better? Most likely, nothing.
Re:The Great Microsoft Problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, they've had a slew of real competitors. Apple used to be far more viable than it was now. OS/2, RealNetworks, Netscape, take your pick.
Yes, MS is dependent on the upgrade treadmill, and they've had clever ways to get people to upgrade anyway - let's face it, there's no functional difference between Office 95 and Office XP. The only "improvements" have been to add features and functions that virtually nobody uses anyway. But people upgrade anyway, due in great part to the fact that MS breaks and reinvents the
And, for my money, the minute they pursue the upgrade treadmill concept to its logical conclusion - software leasing - they've nailed their own coffin. Who needs that shit - paying your monthly Microsoft bill along with electricity and telephones and water? How many companies just finished moving to win2k, and already they're being told to start thinking about XP?
Anyway, I'll share a story about another computer monopoly that my father, the old computing fogey from back in the day, shared with me. He grew up and took his education in computers during period when computing was IBM. If you wanted anything computing, IBM was not just the best way, it was, most often, the only way. So he and his fellow CS students, in his undergraduate and graduate days, grew into a sense that IBM was stifling innovation for its own gain. And they carried that into the real world with them. And as they moved up the ladders of corporate power, they remembered IBM when they came to have purchasing power, and anything that remotely came close to doing the job got bought, so long as it wasn't IBM. This, combined with a never-ending antitrust investigation, helped humble IBM.
Now, think of MS in the 1990's, and compare to IBM of the 1960's and '70's. If I had to add anything, I'd add that MS doesn't appear to me to have the kind of institutional inertia or memory that IBM did - MS seems largely a cult of personality, held together by the force of BillG's will. But, of course, personality cults rarely outlive the personalities they are built around. I have real trouble seeing MS flourish after the end of Bill...
Consider this, my fellow slashdotters - remember MS over the last 10 years when your employer comes to you to ask you for your advice. And have patience. Even the mightiest of empires is destined to crumble.
Not answer, create (Score:2)
All of the companies listed (but can't speak about WOTC) work very hard to create a demand for their products and services. You left out phillip morris and a few others. Perhaps I should be daring and mention that you also left out the drug cartels. This is not what people want, it's what they've been told they want.
Can you honestly tell me that Peruvian natives actually wanted black caffienated phosphoric acid before CCC moved in and flogged it to them, hard? People don't actually want ``Word'' or ``Windows'', they want software that does certain things, or even more so, they simply want to do certain things, and Microsoft have - at great expense - sold them on the idea that the Microsoft Way is the best (only) way, and please pay at the till on the way out.
What they are doing now is escalating that to the point of being able to make you pay every time you breathe or blink. Bill's attitude is probably very much along the lines of ``let them eat cake. [knology.net]''
Yah, like Microsoft Bob with the reversed OK and Cancel buttons, those useless disappearing menus, and that fsking PITA paperclip. Oh, and dear old Word, with Format-everything-else in the Format menu, but Format-Page in [drum roll...] the file menu! Of course! No thanks.
``Simplicity,'' yes, but simple not in the sense of easy to use. Simple in the sense of having important bits missing, like security (CodeRed/SirCam/PWL-files/CIFS-hole-de-jour,PPTP,. ..), timesharing (WinModems), user awareness (Windows login), reliability (all, especially Bill's '98 USB scanner driver :-), consistency (NT GUI routing != text) standards (Kerberos/AD/IE-MIME-handling), flexibility (FIND.EXE,EDLIN.COM), honesty (DR-DOS crash code in WFW3, ``IE is necessary for Windows''), and much else. Any modern Linux installer and/or system management toolset (think DrakConf) eats Windows for manageability, and Konqueror (for one example) stands between Explorer and WorkPlaceShell for elegance and consistency.
For...? Stepping on HTML mines? It took them a hell of a long time to get IE smooth, most of the Open browsers are up on it in half the time.
Samsung make even more beautiful chips (Alphas) but Intel may not let them play in that space for long. And tell me that Intel haven't pulled out all the stops to cut AMD, Firewire and everyone else who even smells of competitor off at the knees, I dare you...
Yes, and haven't Microsoft just used that ability to the hilt whenever opportunity arose? Have they stopped? Will they ever? Discuss.
Would it impact your gross stupidity at all to learn that eight times as many car accident victims are maimed for life as are killed outright? And even more are permanently handicapped? What you are advocating would cause a dramatic increase in the societal burden of caring for incapacitated accident victims, which is the direct opposite of where your pious bullshit was evidently directed.
The trick is to prevent M$ from altering ``what people want'' to suit their accunting department.
Re:The Great Microsoft Problem (Score:2)
Only on slashdot..
Linux in 2020 (Score:5, Funny)
-Better USB support
-P2P2P2P support for faster MP3 downloads
-Greatly improved SMP
-FreeCiv final + Minesweeper deluxe
-BIND security flaw patched
Case
Re:Linux in 2020 (Score:5, Funny)
- Linux Kernel 2.4.x ('Came Stable in 2010)
- 950,000 packages
- XFree v 4.1
And Debian Hurd is an experimental system , not yet released..
Hogging Produce Bandwidth (Score:3, Funny)
Linux will be just as bad...discuss.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Posit: once Linux reaches a certain saturation, it will suffer the same security issues as Microsoft does.
Bear with me on this...
Take Code Red.The problem is not that Microsoft products are insecure. Code Red exploits a flaw for which the patch was available a month ago.
Neither is it that Microsoft sysadmins are incompetent. Most major systems were indeed patched well in advance. Those that weren't at the time, soon did as Code Red struck: even the least-subscribed admin reads the papers and watches TV news.
No. The problem that should be making the Linux community a little less smug is rather more insideous.
After talking to quite a few infected companies, it seems that the majority of uninfected machines were those that were admin-less.
The sort of server you buy, plug in, have someone load up with whatever and leave in a cupboard to happily serve away...and that is **Precisely** the sort of system Linux is going to be used for.
Once Linux systems are consumer devices (like my lovely Cobalt Qube) - and there is every good reason for them to become so - then no amount of open source hacking, patches, multiple eyeballs and bugtraqery will stop these systems from being compromised once a hole is found and made public.
This is not because they will be run by bad sysadmins, but because they will - as with many MS systems running Code Red right now - not be administered by anyone at all.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the very security of Linux is something to do with the average level of savvy among current Linux users.
Would a bigger userbase keep the same level of security and system awareness? Will the guy in 2020 buying the plug-in-and-leave Linux box for his small business's network know when and where to go for the next patch to Sendmail/Apache/Bind?
Probably not.
And that's the problem Microsoft have. and the one we're going to get.
Re:Linux will be just as bad...discuss.... (Score:2)
I honestly think this won't be the case, for the following reasons:
Unix systems, having been multi-user systems for a number of years, have well-established guidelines for how much permission to give an application. Even simple things like access permissions and chroots would prevent really devastating worms from hosing your system, and perhaps even from spreading. (Even if Linux supports VBScript Attachments in the future, it's very unlikely that the attachment will be able to do much outside of that user's account...) Many Windows problems stem from giving applications too many permissions. The "tight integration" of Windows applications is done with only lip service to security. (this may be better in Win2K, I haven't done that much with it)...
The Open-Source nature of all the major Unix Services mean that any holes can be found more quickly, and be quickly made available. If someone is suspicious of a certain piece of code, they can LOOK AT IT and find out for themselves. You can't do that with IIS, and have to rely on MS to analyze the code and release patches, making the whole process shower and leaving computers vulernable for longer periods of time. By the time the patch comes out, the hysteria may have dies down, and the Admin may have moved on to other things. (Yes, this means that at least one Admin in an organization should know how to read code. I don't think this is unreasonable.)
Individual Open-Source programs are widely deployed (Apache and BIND, for example) and while they have their share of problems, they don't have nearly as many problems as Windows or IIS. Compare the number of Apache problems over the last five years with the number of IIS problems, relate that to market share, and please tell me if I'm wrong!
In short, if Linux had the same market share as Windows, there would certainly be more Linux nasties than there are now, but not nearly as serious and not nearly in the same proportion as currently affects MS products, for all the reasons I outlined above.
Re:Linux will be just as bad...discuss.... (Score:2)
Re:Linux will be just as bad...discuss.... (Score:2)
I believe you are making an invalid assumption that Microsoft == Windows OS. The reason Code Red took off so quickly is that the software with the real problem wasn't Windows, it was IIS. Windows does have a bit of variety (I've heard the original patch would crash IIS on NT4 when Code Red came around again), but IIS is a lot more homogenous. In this case it should be compared to Apache. I don't know when the last remote root exploit was found in Apache, but I'm sure it was found through source code inspection. I seem to recall hearing that the default.ida exploit used by Code Red was found by someone disassembling (!) IIS to look for vulnerabilites.
You're also making the invalid assumption that Linux == Linux. The reason that Microsoft OS'es, and IIS in particular, are so homogenous is that they are installed from CD-ROMs that are produced in the millions! The same can be said for Red Hat, which, not coincidentally, is the distribution of choice for people running honeypots. Just do a full install of RH 6.0 and wait for the 'sploits to come flooding in! On the other hand, a Slackware install with half of the daemons recompiled from freshly downloaded source, and a decent ipchains firewall is much harder to break into. It's not Linux becoming dominant that will be a problem, it's a single distro like RedHat (aka DeadRat) becoming popular among people who don't know what they're doing that is the problem. And right now, 4 out of 5 people who don't know what they're doing choose Microsoft.
Once Linux systems are consumer devices (like my lovely Cobalt Qube) - and there is every good reason for them to become so - then no amount of open source hacking, patches, multiple eyeballs and bugtraqery will stop these systems from being compromised once a hole is found and made public.
Ah yes, your lovely Cobalt Qube, where upgrading the OS with anything other the official Cobalt patches violates the warranty? What an excellent way to ensure homogenity!
Re:Linux will be just as bad...discuss.... (Score:2)
Dammit, brain fart. It's the RaQ that has this warranty policy. I have no idea whether the Qube has this.
you did not think hard (Score:2)
Posit: once Linux reaches a certain saturation, it will suffer the same security issues as Microsoft does.
Unplace excriment: Apache runs more web servers than IIS, the victim of Code Red. Saturation reached, failure not suffered. Think about it for a while.
It's automatic... systematic... hydromatic... (Score:2)
We need a CLI version of those pretty GUI updaters. Debian is already set, of course. Not a complete answer, of course, but done with a touch of planning will eliminate 99% of failure-to-update errors.
Mac OS X update solution (Score:2)
Take Code Red.The problem is not that Microsoft products are insecure. Code Red exploits a flaw for which the patch was available a month ago.
This is a good point. I really like the Mac OS X solution and which that other unix variants would adopt a similar solution. At scheduled intervals, the machine will contact a central database at Apple looking for software updates. The user may select one or more. These are then downloaded and automatically installed (usually without requiring a reboot). If a security hole is found, a patch is made available on the server and 'average' users should pick it up eventually.
Before readers get too caught up in the details, there are some potential drawbacks to this scheme. One: the centralized server means that Apple gets to control which 3rd party tools can be updatd. Two: it might be possible to spoof the server IP and send out fake updates. There are solutions to each of these. The key thing is that updates are easy and largely automatic.
This sounds familiar... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think I've seen something similar not too long ago. Don't remember where, unfortunately.
Quite a good point about everything running the same OS and getting hit by (worms | virii | crackers) at the same time -- it's even more poignant and ironic with the infections of Code Red 1, 2 (and 3?) still making the rounds.
The corn analogy drives his point home quite well, too!
Now... where are those raging mobs he talks about? We sure could use a few of them -- especially for all the brilliant individuals who still haven't noticed their infected boxes, never mind turn them off! (God forbid they could be bothered to patch 'em!)
Sheesh.
Is Windows security full of holes? (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, I guess. On the other hand:
My point is only that we all live in glass houses.(from the first page of Debian [debian.org] )
Re:Is Windows security full of holes? (Score:2)
Let's list all the applications that run on windows and their security risks. AS everything up there has nothing to do with linux, they are just applications that run on linux,bsd,and windows if I wanted to cross-compile them.
Re:Is Windows security full of holes? (Score:2)
#apt-get update
#apt-get dist-upgrade
Unless it's the kernel being upgraded, you won't have to reboot either. There will be a few seconds of downtime as individual services restart themselves. Not bad.
Sure, all widely used OSen will have holes but some are easier to keep plugged than others. Oh yeah, and installing or upgrading a service won't roll back the last seven updates that were patched into the system.
Re:Is Windows security full of holes? (Score:2)
"Remote exploit"? That makes it sound like someone can 0wn your machine. When in actuality, this particular "exploit" merely allowed people to bypass an index.html file and see a raw directory listing.
[10 Aug 2001] DSA-071 fetchmail - memory corruption
They may call it a "security alert", but "memory corruption" sounds more like a simple bug to me.
You're equating a few tools with a whole slew (Score:2)
Compare the severity of the exploits (e.g. DSA-067 gets you limited control of the Apache user, CodeRed gets you unlimited control of the whole machine) and the difficulty of using them (DSA-071 or 068 cause an application or service crash in special circumstances, SirCam sends your secrets around the world).
That's like equating FIND.EXE with grep, or EDLIN.COM with vi, and being proud of the DOS app having less known vulnerabilities.
You're comparing strawberries and potatoes, Doug.
Microsoft don't ship TCPdump, so nobody reports vulnerabilities in it. There are dozens of webmail apps available for Linux, and most are reported at places like Debian. There is just one shipped with Windows (Outlook) and little else gets its bugs reported (-: maybe because Outlook fills quota quite handily all by itself?
But what happens *after* the exploit? (Score:4, Insightful)
Even when the next Apache exploit is found, it only gains access as the user "apache", and even that will frequently be in a chroot jail.
Security is not a firewall.
Security is not a bug-free program.
Security is not even a set of procedures.
Security is a process, and encompasses all of the above. Security also realizes that accidents happen, and attempts to minimize the aftereffects.
That is one place Windows falls down, there is inadequate system partitioning. IIS and its bevy of extensions run with Admin authority. No dedicated accounts, no chroot jails, etc. At least not by default.
Default security has been pretty bad on Linux, but gets better all the time. Furthermore, there are releases geared toward the server business that are much tighter, by default.
Re:But what happens *after* the exploit? (Score:2)
"Inside Internet Security" by Jeff Crume is a free book being given away by IBM that covers a lot of security topics in a really good way. They get into a lot of white-hat/black-hat discussion, which is sometimes really a distraction from talking about good policies, but it's still good overall. Get a free copy here [ibm.com] instead of paying $30 for it, and you can even spamgourmet [spamgourmet.com] the address so you make sure you don't hear from them after signing up.
Remember, security is a process, not a package you buy in a store. The best tech won't help if someone is loaning their keychain with security keyfob to their girlfriend or lets their cousin use their corporate PPP account to browse the web from his home.
Re:But what happens *after* the exploit? (Score:2)
You're right, BIND, sendmail, Apache, etc have had troubles, and have fixed them. But Microsoft should also not be on their own isolated learning curve. They should have seen the BIND, sendmail, and Apache problems and solutions, and incorporated appropriate fixes for their own products.
So yes, I can criticize their stupidity, because apparently they didn't learn from history.
Re:Is Windows security full of holes? (Score:2, Insightful)
However, the article was not about security problems in Windows. It was about the security problems inherent in the software monoculture that Microsoft seems bent on creating.
Ecologists have long been aware of the dangers of monoculture. Using only a single strain of a species makes that species vulnerable to decimation by a single disease or parisite. The answer they have come up with is not to create a single super-resistent strain of each crop, but to plant a variety of strains so that if a new disease exploits a vulnerability in one, it won't threaten the whole species.
Does the same hold true for software? I think it does. Imagine what a Code Red-like worm could do if 90% of all machines were running the same OS/server combination. Without the buffer of uninfectable machines, we would have a real mess on our hands.
electric shaver???????????? (Score:2, Funny)
wonder how his face looks like when Win goes blue...
2020 Debian Stable (Score:2, Funny)
Odd... (Score:3, Interesting)
One would think that if there was a cult of Mac users that nearly everyone knew about, it would be rather obvious when all the Microsoft-run stuff shut down, that the Mac computers weren't affected. Seems to me that'd be enough to have people switching systems...at least if it was a crisis on this scale...
...isn't that one of the major problems w/ Linux, that most people just don't know it exists? I know I didn't have a clue what it was until one of my friends got me to start reading Slashdot. And if this guy ever thought that MS would be able to over-run the alternate-OS crowd that frequents this place... well, I don't believe that's possible.
I like the bit about the Frosted Flakes though. :)
Re:Odd... (Score:2, Interesting)
I notice that the "yaboot" linux bootloader works just fine on the new, "changed" macs, and no one ever managed to write a proper Linux bootloader (well, OK, miBoot, but it was a terrible kludge) for the old macs.
Be were just a bunch of whiners IMO.
Re:Odd... (Score:2, Insightful)
As plastik55 says, the basic hardware bootstrapping is done with OF. Information about particular devices is available from Darwin [apple.com]. The idea that it's somehow illegal to use this information is a bit implausible, unless you entered into a contract to say you wouldn't - but I doubt that applies to Be.
-dair (IANAL, but I doubt the person from Be who told you this was either)
Linux "illegal" on G3/G4? (Score:2)
The only reason I can think of that Apple would mind is that Linux allows one to put off retiring the old machine here and there. We are using a 233Mhz Beige G3 Desktop as an inventory and troubleticket database as well as a file/web server for our tech dept. The machine is running Debian and is fast and "just works" at it's appointed duties. I'm sure Apple would love to sell us a G4 running OS X Server to do the same thing. Since the machine is the Desktop model and not a tower, I run it headless underneath my desk. It stays out of the way too.
ps. We did upgrade the memory and disk in the thing but spent less than 100 to make a spiffy server out of it.
Re:Odd... (Score:2, Insightful)
Be's story that it was all Apple's fault may have had more to do with getting passed over in favour of NeXT and receiving a large cash injection from Intel...
-dair (yeah, OT)
Re:What school do you go to? (Score:2)
It's sounds as if these Linux admins handled the whole situation really badly although instituting a better security policy is not, IMHO, ever a bad thing.
Funny or not, it really makes you think... (Score:4, Insightful)
I was going to write a longer post, but then I realized one thing: There is no way that this can be stopped. Maybe all computers will run M$ software, or maybe not. But then look around you! Even though in the early 1900s there were cars running on gas, steam and electricity, only the gas cars remain. Why? They were the most feasible to build. Now the technology has evolved to a point where we might see some other kind of car using maybe H2, solar or some other energy source, and all the new cars will use that new, better source.
Another example is the cell phone. In the beginning all were analogue (at least in the US). Go to Europe now, and most people don't even know what that is. Why? All cells there are digital, and most of the ones in the US are the same. And how many digital protocols are there? GPM is only one of them, but soon 3G is comming, and that will be the world standard.
The point I'm trying to make is that maybe uniformity is good. Maybe all computers will run M$ software, although I doubt it! (I would never trade Linux for Windoze). So the problem is not that every computer will run the same OS. The problem however is finding the best OS to use on all computers.
But it's 5am where I live, and I think I'll solve it tomorrow.
Re:Funny or not, it really makes you think... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly why cell phones are so popular in Europe/Asia - there's an incredible diversity of handsets available, all of which have different features and trade-offs between (say) battery life and weight.
But underneath they all talk the same language - you can send an SMS message from pretty much anywhere in Europe and you know it'll get through to a handset thousands of miles away. The fact that it 'just works' is testament to how useful it is to have standardised protocols for communicating between different implementations.
I don't think it is - the problem is finding the best protocol to use to let computers talk to each other. The OS is several levels above this, and standardising on the OS is like standardising on a singe type of cell phone.
Case in point, the net - since every system converged on TCP/IP, life has gotten a whole lot easier. Standardising on a protocol like that allows you to pick the OS that's best for the job, and not be forced into one particular OS just because it's the only one you can use to communicate with everyone else.
-dair
Re:Funny or not, it really makes you think... (Score:2, Interesting)
[nitpicker mode]
Actually, every system converged on IP, since there are a LOT of protocols running under IP. And IP is mostly tunneled in other protocols, causing a lot of problems between networks of different standards. That it still works is almost a miracle.
[/nitpicker mode]
Why subscribe to software in the future... (Score:4, Troll)
All you have to do is keep a "Pentium or better" running and you'll be able to load software on it to do everything that 90% of the population will ever need. Heck, some people are still going fine with C64s, Amigas and for all I know, Atari STs. I had an old 19MHz XT with 1 MB of EMS RAM that did pretty well.
I believe that the glut of existing, functioning, equipment will have more of an influence on the future than homoganisation of the available platforms.
Because MS Bugs == Planned Obsolescence (Score:2)
Re:Because MS Bugs == Planned Obsolescence (Score:5, Interesting)
Right now Win2k is perfect for me. It's stable, fast and easy to use. Now from my point of view I look back to what I was using just a few months ago. I was using Win98 because of motherboard issues with Win2k. At the time I was in no position to go from Win98 to Linux because I didn't have the time to learn everything again. I have toyed around with Linux in the past, but not fully because I needed a system right then and there I could fully use to my knowledge. Now anyways, I look back to Win98 and I see hell. Unstable, buggy and just a general annoyance. I look to the future and I see WinXP. I don't like the idea of my operating system phoning home or disabling my system if I move my hardware around too much because it invades my privacy. I have other quarrels, but I just want to basically point out my reasoning.
To sum it up, Win2k does everything I want. Going back to Win98 isn't an option, going forward to WinXP is a definate no-no.
As soon as Win2k can no longer function for me, that is the day I move to Linux.
That's what I said about 95 (Score:3, Insightful)
The more I used, the more I learned and the easier linux became, and the harder MS looked. Looking back on things, it's amazing to me that anyone would trust configurations to anything but a human readable text file. The amount of trust required of MS to do anything is amazing. Good grief, just look at that sloppy NetBIOS. Look at all the hidden stuff. How does anyone memorize that awful pile of symbols that are the ever shifting MS interface? Work, with NT desktops, it painfully constricted and limiting. No compilers, how can people stand it? Only a single window manager with a single virtual screen? Only one crippled shell? I have no regrets as 98 dies on it's last machines in my house. It sucked, then it died. Win2k? No way!
The sooner you move, the happier you will be. The things you learn from MS are either counter productive or plain useless. Want stability, get Debian potato. Want privacy, get ssh.
Re:Because MS Bugs == Planned Obsolescence (Score:2)
On the other hand, I've never seen a linux box kill itself in this fashion. Sure, I've seen crap happen like ext2 volume corrupting from bad restarts, but with ReiserFS, XFS and JFS becoming stable that's not really a problem anymore.
Re:Because MS Bugs == Planned Obsolescence (Score:2)
Then there's the total lack of protection on most resources... A run-away program, even not as Admin, can render the system unbootable, or trash the registry.
The OS itself just isn't as stable. Win2k is the best of the MS OSes, but I'm pleasently suprised when it hits two weeks, and it's never lasted over a month, even with no games and light use.
I've worked on many *nix (not just Linux) boxes that had been up two years or more.
Then there's the issue of bloat.. Win2k chews through 512MB of RAM. I don't know if it's using a bad caching algorithm, or if the internals of the OS bloat enough to use a few hundred MBs, but it gets fairly slow before it finally tanks... thrashing like mad when you load something.
Win2k is a pretty nice OS, I use it for work, and home when I'm gaming. But it's not ready for serious work... MS's recommendation for most system problems is to reboot the computer.
No serious product needs to be shut-down like that. See the Cisco discussion on here from back when Slashdot went down... All the admins of real computers and dedicated hardware said that rebooting will never solve the problem, only the recent symptoms. Seeing as how Windows, out of the box, needs to be rebooted to fix many issues, and every time you update some system component, I can only conclude that you shouldn't use Win2k for anything that requires stability or security.
I recommend Win2k to *any* user of Windows, because it's much better than any of their previous OSes, but it's still liking putting a quad-xeon up against a Sun mainframe... real jobs need real OSes (and real hardware...)
Re:Because MS Bugs == Planned Obsolescence (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, though. I agree 100% to the post previous to yours. I'm running Windows2000 and have a significant amount of money invested in *commercial* software (*cough* Office *cough*) that I'm not going to just throw away because someone says "linux is faster and more stable." My Win2K experience is, for the most part, rock solid. It works for me. I will not upgrade to XP for the same reasons as stated before: I'm uncomfortable with the idea of my machine calling "home" and the idea of having to stay on the line for "tech support" to get a new key if I continue to geek out and buy new hardware. Fuck that.
I've got Redhat 7.1 on my Sony Vaio 505FX. Mainly because I didn't want to be a pir8 and just put Win2k on it (win98 is just so horribly unstable). Linux works well on this laptop, although the sound is still not configured right (and I don't have internet access with the laptop. If you want to send me a PCMCIA ethernet card, feel free to.
Re:Why subscribe to software in the future... (Score:2)
The only reason I ditched it was the 5 1/2" full hight floppy drive was getting cranky and I couldn't find a replacment.
I donated it to a church and it's still chugging away doing useful work.
Oh sure, a few years from now I'll want something newer and snazzier than the Athlon 900 I have now. I WON'T want to get rid of the Athlon though. Why should I? It plays music, it records music, both prepackaged and live. It makes CDs. It plays and records movies and TV. It renders images in photo quality. It surfs the web. It can interface with, and control, every electronic device in my house, and with a bit tinkering every NON electronic device in my house. Screen resolutions are higher than anybody can see.
Hell, it even *computes!*
And all of the software to do this is either free or easily writable by myself.
It already does what 90% of the population needs, but more than that, it already does 90% of everything *I* will ever need.
I don't need a faster cpu to get 300 fps in Quake, I need new algorithms to make Quake look like natural motion at 30 fps.
I sure as hell don't need Windows XP. The "industry" is counting on XP to sell computers. What's with that? Do these people have their heads up their fscking butts? It ain't going to happen. If I WANTED XP I'd buy XP, not a computer.
What I need is bigger, faster *storage.*
At least until the Virtual date with petrified Natalie Portman with hot grits down her pants program comes out.
I might buy a new machine to run that. I'll still run my core apps on my current machine though. The new one will be down for cleaning too often.
KFG
Re:Why subscribe to software in the future... (Score:2)
Never say never when Micro$oft is concerned. I've been involved in the Home Automation industry and the established vendors got real nervous when Micro$oft started getting the biggest booth they could at HA shows. But all they really seemed to demo was home networking. Home Automation is more about centralized control of the systems in your house. Climate control, A/V, security, etc. For years it has been heavily run by embedded systems using RTOS setups. There are also systems that run on PCs, but they often lack easy to find and use I/O (Digital, Analog, RS-485, etc) Its out there but not for mainstream stuff. Right now, one of the more popular PC based setups is Mr House which is perl based.
So yes, Microsoft really thinks this is an area they can dominate. Yes, some of the high dollar systems (think 10-20% of the cost of your new home) run windows. But for 'everyday' Home Automation, embedded setups are king. Linux is just starting to get buzz for the next generation stuff, but primarily, Home Automation is run on 8-bit systems from PIC microcontrollers up to high end embedded CPUs. The reason? Cost. When you can buy a small system for Considering you can get complete RTOS systems like uC-OS/II (Rabbit C [rabbitsemiconductor.com]) or Java (Dallas TINI [ibutton.com]) with a compiler with built in Internet libraries for HTTP, FTP, SMTP, etc, etc including servers for $300, its hard to justify paying royalties for anythign Micro$oft might come out with. Especially when the actual HW cores can be had for $30-$100 including ethernet!
Re:Why subscribe to software in the future... (Score:2)
Apparently, that is what Bill Gates eventually wants to do
Re:Why subscribe to software in the future... (Score:2, Interesting)
Darwinism does not apply to Capitalism.
The best product, unfortunately, is usually not the one that survives. Rather, it's the one that has the best marketing.
On the topic of using old computers, I don't think it's because they're hard to maintain. I don't know what you mean by that - my Atari ST needs no maintainance. I don't use it for one simple reason - I have absolutely no use for it. Everything I do on my PC would be completely impossible with that little amount of computing power.
Re:Why subscribe to software in the future... (Score:2)
I don't think you understand either Darwinism or Capitalism.
Dawinism states that the organisms that are best adapted for their environment will be the ones that pass on their genes.
Geeks love the BEST solution to a problem, where best == technically elegant or technically advanced.
The real world like the GOOD ENOUGH solution, which wins because there are more parameters than "technical elegance" in the real world. In the real world, MS wins most of the time because they are "best adapted" to the environment they work in.
Sad, but true. The world is not an ideal place.
-jon
Re:Why subscribe to software in the future... (Score:2)
Impossible? Really? I've never had nor seen an Atari ST but I've heard that they had a color GUI with multimedia that for the mid 80's rocked - sort of the Amiga before there was an Amiga. I don't doubt that it probably doesn't have a big hard drive or RAM but I've heard of people porting web browsers and such to the ST.
Re:Why subscribe to software in the future... (Score:2)
Frankly, that's bollocks. The ST serial port goes up to 115,200 baud, and did so long before PC's had the 16550 UARTs.
- One available parallel (i think) port
How many parallel ports have you got? How many do you need?
- No hard drive
Didn't need a hard drive. A complete, usable Cubase Score could run from a single floppy...
- One available hard drive port
The hard disk port *was* a wierd one, but hard drive adaptors were relatively cheap, and gave you standard SCSI connectors.
Yes, there was a web browser for it, and yes, there is Perl for it.
An Atari ST may not have the power to function as your computer, but I find it worked well as my main sequencer. It was gigged, hauled about, stuff spilled on it, dropped, run over by a Nissan Micra (don't ask...) and it still worked. Looked a bit rough though.
Re:Why subscribe to software in the future... (Score:2, Insightful)
Windows (M$ products in general) rae like fruit flies (or any insect). only lasts a day but there are so many of them, with new ones all the time.
the *nix's are more like bigger creatures. they last for ages but there aren't nearly as many of them.
not the best analogy but hey, what do you expect for 7 seconds of thought?
dave
Re:Why subscribe to software in the future... (Score:2)
Games are not the reason to upgrade that they once were.
Perceptions are important (Score:2, Interesting)
Whether this distrust will result in the company being constrained to operate consistently with its monopoly status is - unfortunately - another matter entirely. It looks as though MS's top management has decided to construct new facts on the ground which will make current court rulings irrelevant; unfortunately the US justice system appears unable to cope with this strategy.
take a cue from mother nature (Score:2, Insightful)
The bit about the subscription system's reverberating side-effects rings awfully true too. Proprietary and convoluted file-formats can only do so much to bring about the American(TM) dream of planned obsolescence. But mark my words: Subscription software is flawed in its genes and doomed to fail. Anything that goes straight to profit-motive without providing added value to the consumer *cough*antitrust*cough* just seems a little dubious.
Personally, I'm getting one of my hotshot Windows geek buddies to whip up a nice short hack to disable the automatic shutoff for my own personal use. Want one? It'll be printed on T-shirts next year in rebus sistena verse.
Steve Ballmer in 2020? (Score:3, Funny)
Heres a Windows humor piece: MS + neuromancer (Score:5, Funny)
Windows DNI
You open the box labeled "Windows DNI: Direct Neural Interface", carefully extracting the pouch labeled "License Agreement". You examine the contents of the pouch, finding an inflatable cap bearing the Windows logo rather than the familiar 3.5" diskette package. You inflate the cap, insert two "C"-size batteries (not included), and carefully place it on your head. You press the Start button.
Immediately, the image of an hourglass comes to your mind. You find yourself trapped; unable to move anything in your body save your eyes. After an indeterminable delay, you regain control of your senses. You are suddenly compelled to speak your name and business affiliation. You then retrieve your Windows DNI package and chant the Product-ID number.
Suddenly you see the words "Windows is detecting new hardware" flash before your eyes. You crash to the floor, writhing in agony. You feel every muscle in your body contract and retract in turn. Your mind is filled with the image of a blue inchworm, creeping slowly across a grey field. The creature finally reaches the edge of its domain, and your seizure ceases. You take a moment to regain your composure, and you are reminded of your high school anatomy course as a complete listing of every organ in your body appears before your eyes. You browse the list for a moment, and utter the phrase "OK". After a short delay, you hear the sound of a trumpet echo through the recesses of your mind.
You find yourself in a large, barren space. You look around, and discover images labeled "My Brain", "Recycle Bin, and "Set up the Microsoft Network". You feel compelled to utter the word "Start", after which a list of options floods your mind. Weary from the detection phase, you utter the word "Shut down". You close your eyes, and blackness surrounds you. You feel yourself start to drift into sleep. Your peace is interrupted, however, as a bright orange light invades your nothingness. "It's now safe to shut down your mind".
You drift into unconsciousness, and sleep for several hours. When you awaken, you are frozen in place as you see clouds and blue cycling colors. After a short eternity, the familiar "My Brain" icon reappears in your mind. But something is terribly wrong; you can feel it in your gut. Just outside the range of primary vision, you can sense something lurking about you on all four sides.
You slowly look up, and see the word "Safe Mode" glaring back at you. You back away slowly, swivel your head, and there it is, behind you as well. Your heartbeat quickened and you are terrified as you turn to your left and your right and it meets you there as well, its cold, heartless glare filling your soul with despair.
Quickly, you summon Control Panel, System, Device Manager. You feel yourself frantically gasping for air as you run through the list of installed devices. You come upon "Respiratory System" and are horrified to see a black exclamation point on a yellow field next to the entry "Lungs". You close your eyes and utter the word "Properties". On the closed curtains of your eyelids, you see your life flashing before your eyes.
You force yourself to concentrate on your situation, attempting to discover which system devices are in conflict, when suddenly your entire body seizes up in pain. You lose all sense of reality. You are floating through the clouds as you hear a voice echo through your mind: "This program has performed an illegal operation and will be terminated." You start to black out and suddenly you remember your situation. You stare in horror at your blue extremities, knowing that, without oxygen, you will not last much longer. With all the consciousness you can muster, you force yourself... To reboot.
You awaken in a place that is dark, but familiar. A solitary white prompt on a black field greets you. You look behind you and see the wreckage of the operating system that nearly spelled your demise. "Cannot find a file that may be needed to run Windows". You turn around to face the prompt, and a wide grin comes across your face. You take a deep breath and revel in the life-giving atmosphere. You laugh as you utter the words, "DELTREE WINDOWS".
Suddenly you find yourself on the floor of your home. You find the charred remains of the Windows DNI beanie littering the floor. You carefully gather them up, stack them neatly on an altar, and burn them, promising yourself never to risk your life with Microsoft again. You bury the ashes, knowing that your life is again in order.
I have no idea who originally wrote this, it was emailed to me a few years ago...
mkay (Score:2, Funny)
I see that the justice system in the States works just fine
one operating system ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Windows is good for home users and workstations, xp is actually quite good, but there is enough reactionary backlash against MS that even if they did manage to release a perfect windows os in the next few years *nix and other os's wouldn't just dissapear overnight (or even 20 years I suspect).
Is it possible to totally secure an os ?, you never know one day it might. In this case, as long as windows doesn't crash and does what it is supposed to then I will be more than happy to live in that world.
by then... (Score:5, Funny)
Hopefully ram prices will be decent then
the article forgot to mention... (Score:3, Funny)
Gah! (Score:4, Funny)
Was that supposed to be funny? (Score:2)
still the windows metaphor (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought that we would have evolved to something more multi-dimensional - rooms, say?
Re:still the windows metaphor (Score:4, Funny)
Re:still the windows metaphor (Score:2)
Re:still the windows metaphor (Score:2)
Yippie.
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
Also from 2020 (Score:4, Funny)
web appliances (Score:2, Funny)
A tad unfair (Score:2, Insightful)
The natural refute to what I've said, is that Linux will afford a greater degree of variety in each of its implementations, while Windows will likely be the same software, with the same vulnerabilities on every device that runs it.
That too, however is unfair. Witness the X-Box--A very slim kernel (it's smaller than WindowsCE) with extraneous functionality ripped out. Microsoft is capable of de-bloating their kernel.
Further, the idea that security exploits would exist across device implementations is pretty absurd. Beyond the possibility of bugs in, say, the Networking stack or race conditions in the kernel, this simply isn't likely to happen. A toaster would not need to run IIS, and so would not run IIS, hence it has no fear of Code Red.
This is akin to arguing against the ubiquetious (no, I do know how to spell that. My apologies) adoption of Linux because of say, the exploit in piranha from a while back.
Similar OS/Computers not the problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This has already happened... (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't that pretty much true right now (and for the past 5 years)?
In short, no. If you take all the computers in the world and worked out what percentage are Intel based you get a figure less than 0.2% - of those, maybe 80% are running Windows.
The problem is what you identify as a computer and as an OS. The article discusses traffic lights, shavers, etc. and these are examples of embedded systems. An electric shaver may have a very simple embedded system in there, bordering on an OS. A traffic light system has something a bit more complicated. Your video recorder or DVD doesn't need anything particularly fancy, but still has something bordering on an OS in there. Same goes with your car's engine management, your burglar alarm, your microwave, etc... Just because almost every desktop you see has Windows running on it, doesn't mean every computer in the world runs it - far from it in fact...
This article is talking about the day when all those things are running some version of Windows. As somebody who studied Software Engineering and therefore embedded systems at Uni (although now I work in ISP as it's more interesting), I suspect that day will take some time to get here, and Linux is already in the lead - how many embedded Linux systems are there out there in comparison to Windows?
Re:This has already happened... (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps it's some tie-in with that other PC acronym, political correctness. Ya gotta have a PC to be PC, or something like that. Yech.
- A non-productive mind is with absolutely zero balance.
- AC
Re:This has already happened... (Score:2)
Self destruct (Score:3, Funny)
SlashDot/XP? Didn't pay your software rent?
Not quite yet! (Score:2, Insightful)
Having free, open alternatives allow innovations to take place that would not be possible in Windows. There is often far more inventiveness going on at the fringe then at the core. If the innovations are important enough, they may get ported, or even convince users to leave MS. It is not necessary for everyone to know about *nix right now, good, useful new features and programs will stand on their own.
On a last quick note, I would also add that happily, windows does not seem to scale well in any direction except up:) Maybe we'll see toasters with 512MB of ram in a few years but... I doubt it. I don't want to play chess with my microwave, I just want to reheat the damn pizza! -_^
Re:Not quite yet! (Score:2, Insightful)
yeah, that is what you think! And mobile phones are only for calling right? Bzzzzt, try again.
Scope of ``homogeny'' (Score:2)
On the desktop, yes. Something like 95% penetration. Not in server-space (halleluyah!) else CR2 would have pretty much axed the Internet for a fortnight.