I'd rather have hardware that works well. Closed source drivers don't bother me.
While I agree, I still would prefer that nvidia open sourced it's drivers once and for all, so we can have hardware that works well and stability to go with it.
Actually, were it not for propietary blobs, there would be abolutely no necesity for them. Linux is designed to have drivers in-kernel, so no user intervention should be required to have devices working, hence, a friedly UI for users to configure devices is sort of wierd.
Seeing as how propietary drives need to be properly integrated for non-power-users to install them, the package manager usually sounds like the right place.
Text files have their huge advantage. They're easy to back up and don't require anything aside from a text-editor to restore a broken system. I can easily copy them over, and diff them. Sample configuration files are quick to compare.
None of this is true for the windows registry.
Text files may be less newbie friendy, but then again, programs do have a settings/preferences option generally for stuff newbies want to touch. Messing the config files OR a registry by these sort of users tends to end badly anyway.
Actually, that's quite wrong.
There's are standards for configuration locations, and only legacy applications and notable exceptions keep them elsewhere.
Generally,
See the XDG Basedir Spec for more details.
Wrong.
Encryption is security through obscurity, just like MAC filtering.
No it's not. None of them have any obscuriy. Encryption can openly defined, it's just they keys/passphrases that are secret. Mac filtering has no obscurity at all.
One is far more difficult than the other, but they are more or less the same. The MAC is a 6 byte key that gets broadcast openly fairly often where as most people use far larger keys for encryption that aren't broadcast at all if possible, but in the end the principles are the same.
Please stop repeating things someone else said that you don't understand.
Security is built in layers, defense in depth. You use as many as you can/need. You ACCEPT that one or more of your security protocols CAN and WILL fail, but you design in the hope that enough of them will work to keep you safe.
Your argument is the height of ignorance. You're arguing that leaving your valuables out in the front yard near the street is just as secure as putting them in your home because you left the door unlocked, ignoring the fact that no one will see them inside the house so they won't know its there to steal. Sure, its easy to walk through then unlocked door, but thats already a step beyond what most people will do.
I'm not repeating something someone else said. Mac filtering is like having a doorman to whom you scream your name before getting into the building. Anyone in range can hear it, and pretend to be you by screaming your name.
Actual encryption is like having a key. Nobody can get in until you give them a copy of it (eg: tell them the password).
Mac filtering is aking to drawing a lock on your door instead of having one.
Why was your driver maintained out-of-tree?
If Uber really has a better business model, it may drive the traditional taxi companies out of business. Then all those taxi drivers will join a service like Uber, bringing the same problems with them. Uber will be a nation-wide monopoly or part of an oligopoly.
The bad drives will eventually be down-rated and will end up having no job any more. The same applies for badly-conditioned cars.
Not everyone will be served by Uber, which is just a way of connecting drivers and riders; the drivers will have the legal right to refuse to pick up customers. Being a newer technology, older people will have problems using Uber.
In the end, Uber will end slightly better-looking than a traditional taxi company, but less reliable, the (unregulated) prices will end up higher, and when it goes bankrupt in 15 years or so its founders will be rich, but everyone else will be poorer.
You're assuming that no other company can do the same as Uber does. You are mistaken.
Two words: Unlicensed taxis
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/taxi
— n , pl taxis , taxies
1. cab , Also called: taxicab a car, usually fitted with a taximeter, that may be hired, along with its driver, to carry passengers to any specified destination
So, how is Uber and Lyft not a taxi service despite the method to hire said drivers?
Given that you've selectively highlighter a certain portion of the text and ignored the rest, I'm going by that definition, and caliming that American Airlines is an unlicensed cab company! We need to stop them from working illegally at once!
Hmmm. Interesting. Maybe they finally realized that they could re-use existing code instead of shipping their broken drivers year after year. Good for AMD!
Your enterprise networks gets crashed by a [broken?] device that scans for availabe wireless networks?
Looks like your enterprise network has some very serious issues you'll want to look into asap!
Not, crappy security is not better that no security. When users know there's no security, they may be slightly cautious. If they belive there's security in place, they might let their guard down, so this false sensation of security is actually a bad thing.
Please explain how your bank account is any more real.
Google doesn't give, sell or otherwise provide user data to advertisers.
No need to - they are an advertising company.
That just inocent lobbying, companies showing their support for democracy. I hope you're not implying that it's something like bribery, are you?
"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson
