M
Mxsmanic
Matt said:
Just like Apple, except that the somebody else that Apple copied wasn't
trying to make money from it.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Just like Apple, except that the somebody else that Apple copied wasn't
trying to make money from it.
M
Mxsmanic
Matt said:Those giants are adopting Linux en masse ...
Windows is tremendously popular in Asia, much more so than Linux.
Windows is free in countries like China, since there is no enforcement
of copyrights; and since that removes the single biggest possible
obstacle to using Windows in these countries, Windows is actually the OS
of choice on the desktop.
Can a hardware maker ignore 5% to 10% of the world
market and still outdo their competitors?
Yes.
No. We in the West don't see
huge Linux growth yet, but its growth in the East (especially among
small businesses) will bring it to that critical mass.
Don't hold your breath.
Large institutions in the West
(cities, corporations, universities) are already seeing the chance to
save big money by switching to Linux.
Switching to Linux is a very expensive mistake.
Free applications such as the
Firefox browser and OpenOffice are smoothing the transition away from
MS. Commercial software makers will port their stuff to Linux. Then
Linux will be easy for the home user.
And there will be peace and plenty throughout the world. God bless us,
everyone!
M
Mxsmanic
John said:Do you have any citations for that?
Maybe that idea is based on Microsoft reducing the price of its
software in Malaysia?
People in China don't pay for their copies of Windows.
M
Mxsmanic
Ruel said:On Windows, on the desktop, if you create user accounts for everyone in your
house, certain applications still require to be run as administrator (they
are numerous, too).
That's a problem with the applications, not Windows.
In Linux, applications are run in the user space in the user accounts.
Not if the application requires root privileges. Exactly the same
problem exists under Linux as under Windows. No matter which operating
system you use, if a badly-designed application needs admininstrative
privileges, you have to run it with those privileges, or not run it at
all.
Any vulnerabilities are restricted to destroying the user account, but not the
system itself.
If only that were really true. UNIX systems, like many other operating
systems, are thick with covert channels that effectively subvert the
security that one might naïvely expect to obtain just by creating
separate accounts.
Worst of all, most Windows users do not create user accounts at all, and
simply operate as administrator 24/7. Talk about vulnerable...
In practice, it doesn't change very much, in a desktop system.
This is a fumble. Why have user accounts at all, if they are not secure?
The user accounts are quite secure.
Wrong. That's a defect in the operating system that it allows the
application to run in administrator mode at all from a user account.
No. Applications are only allowed to do that if the legitimate
administrator lets them. That's true on Windows, Linux, UNIX, and most
other operating systems that define accounts with privileges at all.
And this capability is very heavily used on all of these operating
systems.
M
Mxsmanic
Ruel said:Is that why Microsoft has been spying on KDE ...
How does one "spy" on open source?
... looking for ideas to incorporate into the Longhorn desktop?
I don't think so. While all intelligent designers keep their eyes open
for new ideas, I don't think that KDE is any great wellspring of
innovation. The Linux GUIs are really just wannabe Windows GUIs, for
the most part.
Maybe they should have just went back and looked at their
own Windows 95 instead?
You may be right, as Windows 95 was still ahead of Linux in many ways,
from an ergonomy standpoint.
M
Mxsmanic
Ruel said:Secondly, yes, you can be so stupid as to change an application to run in
root mode, but it's not necessary and pretty stupid to do so.
Some applications _require_ root.
All Linux applications are designed to be run in user mode.
What is a "Linux application"? Obviously it excludes a great many of
the zillions of UNIX daemons that require root to work.
An idiot can make his
Linux system insecure, and nothing is stopping him. However, by design,
it's not nearly as insecure as Windows.
You have that backwards. The Windows security model is vastly superior
to the Linux and UNIX models, which were already primitive when they
were invented.
Getting root privileges is temporary in Linux.
True for Windows, too, if configured that way.
You simply turn it on for the task you need to take care of, and
when you exit the application, such as a control panel type of
application where you need to make system wide changes, or exit
your superuser (su) status, it's gone. You are not left
vulnerable.
You're vulnerable if it can be turned on, and you're vulnerable while
it's on.
Regardless of how you spin this, it's true, and reinforces my position
contrary to Mxsmanic's claim that "Linux has a much more primitive security
model than Windows."
Explain the security features that Linux has that Windows does not, and
vice versa.
D
David Maynard
John said:David Maynard said:John said:John Doe wrote:
John Doe writes:Speech recognition can be extremely frustrating, but sooner
or later it will be usable by most people.
Speech recognition, like a GUI, is only a solution to certain
problems, not all.
It's a user interface. It's a way to operate a computer.
Highly likely it will be the way most computers and
computer-based machines will be operated in the future.
I can type faster and more accurately than I can speak.
That is very unusual.
Not really.
In your opinion.
You're probably thinking of 'text' vs speaking the same text.
I'm thinking of what Mxsmanic said.
He's being rather subtle
Doonesbury includes some comedy based on ideas like that. A
Chinese dictator was so disabled that no one could understand
what he was saying. His aid was running the country.
about it but the point he's making is that computers can be
used for lots of things and not all of them are simple text nor
things that lend themselves to easy verbalization.
My reply was based on what Mxsmanic said.
Now we will argue what you want to argue. At least while there
is any point to it.
For example, this linux command line plot FastE packet rate vs
packet size:
echo 'pad=20; plot [64:1518] (100*10**6)/((pad+x)*8)' | gnuplot
-persist Now you and I might not be 'quick' to create that
command but those skilled in the art are and it doesn't lend
itself to verbalization very well
Speech recognition doesn't mean that characters have to be
enunciated one at a time.
(unless you're simply reading it back but that begs the issue
of typing it to begin with in order to read it back),
Typing it to begin with in order to read it back?
and a lot of complex math doesn't. Neither do compiler command
lines.
I do not know what you're trying to say.
That's obvious. Might have helped if you'd have tried reading it
instead of looking to find line by line 'retorts', but no
matter.
I thought imitation was the sincerest form of flattery.
Your reply to my four word sentence was a very long story.
The difference is mine was informative and yours wasn't.
Of course there might be exceptions.
That's why I said "often," and had given examples, instead of an absolute.
Mine aren't illusions, but I know exactly how you feel.
Your instance that you can 'speak' everything, even after given examples,
faster or better than one can type them is an illusion whether you are
aware of it or not, your attempts at what you apparently think is 'wit'
notwithstanding.
My reading comprehension tells me that your application of logic to
this subject leads you to the wrong conclusions.
Which simply illustrates your lack of any attempt at comprehension.
Did you have anything to do with IBM's ViaVoice? It's like a
massive bowl of spaghetti.
No
Have you ever had anything published? Of course I don't mean
simply writing on a web page. Is there any evidence of your
marvelous work anywhere on the Internet you could provide a link
to? Have you written any books? You act like an authority on
everything computer, software and hardware.
I never said any of it was 'marvelous' or any other accolade. And it
doesn't take a 'paper' for someone with basic comprehension skills to grasp
the concept that speaking complex formulas into a computer is more
difficult than typing them even if for no other reason than the visual
feedback from the written text.
D
David Maynard
John said:You just quoted 135 lines of text to make a one-word correction.
That's a hilarious complaint coming from someone who copies spam.
D
David Maynard
Ruel said:David Maynard wrote:
Try again. First of all, there are many applications that have to be run as
administrator or they simply don't run in the user account.
You keep saying it but that doesn't make it true. 'User' programs do not
need Administrator privileges. 'Administrative' programs do, for the
obvious reason they're administrative programs.
Many corporate environments do not allow their users to have
'administrator' privileges even on their own machines so tell me how they
run these 'many applications' you keep speaking of.
Secondly, yes, you can be so stupid as to change an application to run in
root mode, but it's not necessary and pretty stupid to do so. All Linux
applications are designed to be run in user mode.
'Many' Linux programs grab root privileges without any notice to the 'user'
they're doing so and just because you didn't 'alter' anything doesn't mean
root privileges are not being used.
An idiot can make his
Linux system insecure, and nothing is stopping him.
Same with Windows.
However, by design,
it's not nearly as insecure as Windows.
Simply not true.
It was true with the Win9x version but time has moved on.
Getting root privileges is temporary in Linux. You simply turn it on for the
task you need to take care of, and when you exit the application, such as a
control panel type of application where you need to make system wide
changes, or exit your superuser (su) status, it's gone. You are not left
vulnerable.
Same thing with 'run as' in Windows. Except that you can 'run as' at any
security level instead of just wide open sudo root.
Regardless of how you spin this, it's true,
'Emphasizing' that a falsehood is 'true' doesn't magically transform it.
and reinforces my position
contrary to Mxsmanic's claim that "Linux has a much more primitive security
model than Windows."
Care to demonstrate how Linux will automatically restore altered system
files as XP does?
D
David Maynard
Ruel said:David Maynard wrote:
Umm, last I looked, Sarge is "testing", and Woody is "stable".
Woops, you're right.
D
David Maynard
Ruel said:Mxsmanic wrote:
Wrong. That's a defect in the operating system that it allows the
application to run in administrator mode at all from a user account.
Then you just condemned Linux because that's routine with sudo.
D
David Maynard
Harlo said:My problem was mostly with automatically running system scans. Looks like
latest version of NAV has fixed this.
It doesn't and Intuit does not seem to care or think this is a problem as
most of their target users run as admistrator and won't see this as a
problem and demand a fix. The small number of users, like me, who care are
too few to motivate Intuit to fix this.
Could be. I had a bad feeling about Intuit, from what I saw on other
systems, even without considering security issues.
Most programs work fine if installed as an administrator and run as a user.
It is just that some don't and most home users will find life a lot easier
on WXP if they run as an administrator.
Security always makes life 'more difficult'.
I don't want and shouldn't need write access to the program files area. Yes,
power user works, but I don't want that level of access to what should be
read only files. I am trying to protect against buggy or malicious programs.
It is another layer of protection to back up careful selection of which
programs I run. I don't want my computer to become a spam generating zombie.
I understand your concern but those problems don't generally develop from
'user programs' writing into the program area. They generally attack
through Outlook (and OE), which follows the XP security schema of storing
data in the Documents and Settings folder under the user name.
Power users can run legacy applications (meaning non compliant with XP's
security schema) but can't alter system files nor access the data of other
users. Power users on XP are similar to what regular users were on NT4.
But you're right in that, since power users can install programs (as long
as they do not modify system files) that it's more open to internet
infections from things like trojans.
'Users' can't install programs so that prevents installing a potential
trojan, but then it also means you can't install the latest viewer some web
page might tell you it needs. On the other hand, if you can install a
viewer you can install a trojan. Security is 'inconvenient'.
C
Conor
Is that why Microsoft has been spying on KDE, looking for ideas to
incorporate into the Longhorn desktop?
Such as what?
C
Conor
sudo anyone?Wrong. That's a defect in the operating system that it allows the
application to run in administrator mode at all from a user account.
C
Conor
Still can't really run a half decent graphical Linux desktop with lessUmm, last I looked, Sarge is "testing", and Woody is "stable".
than 128MB if you actually want to be able to have apps running at a
usable speed.
J
John Doe
Mxsmanic said:I'm not so sure, as it's extremely inefficient for certain
purposes.
Sorry it doesn't work for you.
That's true even of GUIs, actually.
I find the graphical user interface to be very efficient.
Speech-to-text does much of the rest, and does almost all of my
typing.
You can dictate C code faster and more accurately than you can
type it?
If there were much difference between slower and faster when I
dictate C++ code, dictating it like I dictate text would be faster
and more accurate, Yes. The only reason dictating code, including
command line stuff, might be slower is because the speech
recognition does not include orientation/optimization toward that
end. In fact, accuracy is another major benefit of speech-to-text.
You will find an occasional typo and maybe a grammar error, but
you will find zero spelling errors in my posts to Usenet.
Macroing can be voice controlled. Currently I use speech for
entering function block outlines. Speech is also used for any
ordinary words. The words wParam and lParam are by default
included in this vocabulary as I just spoke them. Few others are,
but they can be included. Any words, including capitalization, can
be simply added to the vocabulary.
Much is a matter of building a vocabulary.
Currently, the example that David Maynard gave might be difficult
to voice one term at a time, but it is remarkably easy to
voice as a macro.
As given, this is the linux command line to plot FastE packet rate
vs packet size.
echo 'pad=20; plot [64:1518] (100*10**6)/((pad+x)*8)' | gnuplot
-persist
That can be entered instantly/perfectly by simply saying "plot
FastE packet rate vs packet size" or just "packet rate versus
packet size".
echo 'pad=20; plot [64:1518] (100*10**6)/((pad+x)*8)' | gnuplot
-persist
That was just written instantly when I said "packet rate versus
packet size"
Macros are common, but speech makes them even easier to use and
the potential scope immense.
Actually, I can voice the first part of that command line quickly.
Echo space' pad equals 20; plot [64: 1518] (100*10**...
.... that was a first effort, light-years from the potential
.... that was spoken with an ordinary speech-to-text program
without any optimization
.... with optimization for command line symbols, spacing, and
punctuation, that will be faster and more accurate than by hand
I realize you are trolling both sides of this issue. But that's
the way it is. Maybe someone else will get something out of it.
By the way. Approached speech recognition with caution. The
potential for an ordinary PC user is much greater than using
Linux, but the frustration can be as intense.
Have fun.
D
David Maynard
Conor said:Still can't really run a half decent graphical Linux desktop with less
than 128MB if you actually want to be able to have apps running at a
usable speed.
Well, that depends on what one means by "half decent."
If you mean "wowie zowie really pretty fade shade morph channels bells
whistles shapes and colors" then perhaps.
But if you mean able to run and use programs then it isn't quite as
resource intensive.
M
Mxsmanic
Ruel said:
Wow! Some people have truly unique perspectives on reality.
M
Matt
Conor said:Meanwhile as Linux suddenly developed a very Windows 95 looking
desktop...
A Linux user can choose to run any of a wide variety of desktops. The
desktop is not part of Linux. Not clear that you or MS can grasp the
concept of software layering.
M
Mxsmanic
Matt said:A Linux user can choose to run any of a wide variety of desktops. The
desktop is not part of Linux. Not clear that you or MS can grasp the
concept of software layering.
Linux fans bend over backwards to hide the fact that the desktop is not
part of Linux.
Come to think of it, practically the entire OS is not part of Linux,
either, but I don't see anyone working to keep that in the minds of
users.