The only reason people say Firefox is going downhill is because more people are using it, therfore internet nonconformity must move on and find a new obscure browser
The only reason people say Firefox is going downhill is because more people are using it, therfore internet nonconformity must move on and find a new obscure browser
there was a picture here
It sucks and I have some fun images for it!
It's casued me a great deal of problems for a long time now, if only I knew how to use Linux I'd use it, plus their mascot rocks! *plays Super Tux*
LET THE HAMMER FALL
Your argument is "People are stuck using Windows now"; add the condition "even though it sucks" and I'll agree. Also note that companies are stuck because MS makes sure people stay stuck.Originally Posted by Loony BoB
Unless the next version of Windows makes a boxing glove shoot out of your DVD drive and punch you in the groin every 10 minutes, most people will keep using whatever comes installed on their computers when they buy it. Which will always be Windows, again because MS makes sure of it. And not always by legal means. At least according to the US and EU legal systems.
Yes, Google runs Linux. Quoth Amazon: "Linux saved us millions" ( http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupda...098989,00.html ) Gamespy (my FF1 site's host) switched recently to Linux from Windows for their servers, perhaps because it kept getting hacked last year. But I don't care how anything works in a corporate setting, or how many people use it, or how much money it costs. People are often stupid when it comes to consumer decisions. The fact that everyone uses Windows or not does not affect the fact that Windows sucks.
The "If everyone used a non-Windows OS it'd have just as many vulnerabilities" argument isn't even worth addressing. Also if any of you think IE is good, I hope you are reincarnated in your next life as a web designer.
My work here is done.
<i>The "If everyone used a non-Windows OS it'd have just as many vulnerabilities" argument isn't even worth addressing.</i>
That's an easy way to get out of making an valid point, eh?
By the way, everyone see how Apple is now officially "supporting" Windows on the mac? Wow.
For the most part, yeah.
There are some memory bloat issues, I hear, but I don't seem to hear any legitimate complaints otherwise.
Anybody who has done tech support KNOWS that people are not smart enough to use linux.
I refuse to do tech support for linux, just like BoB said. I personally believe you need a minimal or nominal amount of intelligence to use a linux platform, even if you just need to boot it up and run your openoffice software.
From the calls I get, I don't believe that >95% of the population has that ability.
Reminds me of when Apple II was being replaced by windows 3.1.
Windows don't come cheap now-a-days, shame on you.
Staring at my sig will not induce epileptic fits.
A themagicroundabout sig, by themagicroundabout.
No, the last few releases are rushed. You are in part right, as the user base of the browser grows, its capabilities must grow. The way many of these features require small patches and cause inflation on browser versions, and cause various features (IE the flash problems, UI problems, etc Bugs) from appearing. OpenSource has one flaw, it is often not tested as much as it should be during patches and updates. Firfox seems to suffer this concequence as well.The only reason people say Firefox is going downhill is because more people are using it, therfore internet nonconformity must move on and find a new obscure browser
The "If everyone used a non-Windows OS it'd have just as many vulnerabilities" argument isn't even worth addressing.
I feel it is. People will always hack, crack, and steal. Our technology is actually very insecure, despite what the 'latest' marketing suggests. Bluetooth, LEAP, and any wireless interface opens countless intrusions, all extremly hackable. Even the cycles inside a processor can be manipulated and read with out any wired connection, so I have heard. Bottom line is, your never safe... dont sleep. Any software intended for one image for countless of different set ups may provide ease of use, but this set will also introduce ease of hack, crack, kill, mame, pillage, and destruction for others.
Windows is basically a window for hackers into your computer. The insecure software is, in turn, a big old welcome mat. It is the simplisity that kills.
Bipper
Bipper
Yeah, I saw that Boot Camp software. Looks promising. There are still a few missing drivers that need to be written, though.
*shug* They wanted video games.
OK. Windows for a long time gave everyone administrator priviledges by default, and many/most programs for Windows require admin rights to do anything useful, which equates to the same thing (forcing everyone to run as admin). How many people here don't run as Admin on a regular basis in Windows? You can argue that these people are idiots, or you can argue that the nature of Windows demands it; I would argue the latter. Any operating system (for example OS X, Linux) which does not give everyone admin rights by default would be inherently more secure than one that does. Vista is changing its security model not to give everyone admin rights, from what I read, so even Microsoft (finally) realizes this. Doesn't change the fact that up to and including Windows XP, any user has the ability to delete nearly any system file.
Installing a program in Windows invariably requires admin rights because system-wide folders are accessed and the Registry is edited. In other operating systems (OS X, Linux) users can install programs on a per-user basis without touching the rest of the system. I would argue that an operating system where most programs make system-wide changes of this sort is inherently less secure than the opposite.
Windows has a single point of failure (the Registry) which nearly any program has rights to edit. If this wasn't true, spyware and adware and viruses would have a much harder time of things. Other operating systems (OS X, Linux) do no have such a wide-open, freely-editable single point of failure. Windows allows things like Sony music CDs to install programs without user interaction which fundamentally change or break the operating system at its lowest levels. Other operating systems do not (OS X, Linux).
Windows has tons of crap directly tied into the kernel. No web browser should he inexorably tied to the operating system in such a way that a browser crash = a system crash. Other systems do not have such things (Linux, OS X to a lesser extent). I would argue that a system whose kernel is more neatly separated from large, complex programs like web browsers is inherently more secure.
Windows XP before SP2 (possibly before SP1?) came with many services running by default, accessible to remote connection. Other operating systems do not (OS X, various flavors of Linux). I would argue that an OS that is listening on ports which are easily exploitable (and have been exploited in large numbers, e.g. Blaster), by default, from the moment you install, without the user doing anything, without informing the user that it's even happening, is less secure than one which does not. I would also argue that not knowing to check your OS for running background services does not make a person an idiot. Do we expect grandma to portscan her computer to make sure her OS vendor isn't incompetent? It's like shipping a car with 4 lug nuts loose on each tire and calling people idiots when their tires fall off.
Windows determines whether something is an executable file by its file extension, and also hides file extensions by default from users. Other operation systems do not (OS X, Linux). This allows someone to do nice crap like send you a wallpaper.gif.exe file and then you have a 50/50 chance of knowing what kind of file it really is. And Windows will happily and blindly execute it. Linux executes a file only if the executable flag is set, and then on a per-user basis. I would argue that Windows is far too lenient in what it considers an executable.
Windows is overly complex and bloated. Opening a file in Notepad requires something like 12 or 16 system calls, I remember reading in one of my programming textbooks. (A system call is when a program makes a request of the kernel.) This is a bit ridiculous. The simpler an OS, the less opportunity for security holes. The more things running in user space, the better. I would argue that Linux at least, and possibly OS X, are simpler and have much more running in user space rather than kernel space, and are therefore less likely to have holes which have the ability to affect the system as a whole.
I could go on, but that's enough. Unless you know of specific ways that Linux and OS X are FAR LESS secure than Windows, which make up for all the things I've mentioned above, you must admit that Windows is inherently less secure.
You may as well make the argument that a house with no doors or windows is not more secure than a bank vault because given enough time and enough people trying, they could get into the bank vault too. Or that the ONLY reason normal houses are robbed more often than bank vaults is because more people have normal houses than bank vaults.
All operating systems are insecure, yes. All programs have bugs, yes. But some have far more problems than others.
Gnome has gconf which is similar to the Windows registry, but not as extensible as the Windows registry. The great thing about Linux is that you can only really break the system one feature at a time through xml file editing and the like. The Windows registry is like one big .txt file that you hope does not get corrupted.
Heck, I'd be happy if it was plaintext. No, it's a nice mangled binary mess of crap you can only view via regedit. It's like this just in case you had some kind of misguided notion of recovering from a system crash that renders the GUI unusable.
Gnome's gconf also sucks, but at least it's just a gui on top of XML and at least it doesn't control your whole system. And if/when the thing becomes corrupt you rm -rf ~/.gconf* and Gnome makes you a new default one next time you start it. Far far cry from the Windows Registry.
Well bipper, hopefully the directx issue doesn't become an issue anymore. There's been some great progress for directx apps under wine. As for NTFS, it seems the kernel developers are working on the issue with NTFS as well. There's an option to compile the kernel with not only read capabilities, but also some limited write capabilities as well. It's still expiremental though as of now.So what does windows do when they begin legitimatly loosing footing in an area (IE DX vs (insert GFX lib))? Pump everything they can in directX technology, and make it a less suitible but more widley used technology. This is a dirty attempt to use thier MONOPOLY to snub other operating systems, and is a horridly discusting way to run a buisness - Then any business run for 100% profit looses all my respect, and seems to apply itself as a virus vs. a productive enviroment.
As for lack of NTFS, all I can do is cry and suggest a good read through on the many FS that linux has to offer. So - much - more. oh - and just give it time
Either way, DirectX is a shotty system. Puting it upon linux to degrade itself to run this ish of a lib is like putting a perfectly acute child in special ed.
OpenGL and Lingo are so far ahead of directX, it is not funny.
Bip
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
