Don't blame the software
Now that IS a very odd thing for me to say. "Don't blame the software" anyone who knows me knows dam good and well I "ALWAYS" blame the software, even when there is smoke coming out he back of the computer I some how find a way to blame it on bad code.
But I restrict this to my own equipment. When it's someone else's equipment I blame the people in charge of the equipment. Also on my equipment 9 times out of 10 I wrote the software so it's still my fault.
I'm talking about the jerk who always pops his head up and yells "Don't use XXX use ZZZ instead" somehow clamming XXX is useless and ZZZ solves all problems magicly. It never ever works that way.
Today it's on Second Life. They had some nasty database issues. Lately they have been having all kinds of nasty database issues. So somebody says "Get rid of the Toy MySQL database" and of course I come to Slashdot to rant (I think I'd get in trubble if I respond on SL).
Basicly every software has it's pluses and minuses. Some more than others.
I see a lot of psudo techies pop up when ever there is a problem and blame something no matter how unrelated.
If you Windows people think this is exclusive to Linux geeks think again. I see more "Use Windows", "Use Microsoft" and other such bullshit than I ever see from the Linux side.
Oh sure BSD people pop up every now and then and say "you might consider migrating your server stack to BSD" and only when doing so might actually solve the problem and not create a whole new set of problems.
However I see a lot of "Use Windows". There is a power outage and the servers all die "Use Windows" and that is going to solve the problem of having NO POWER?
Yes Linux people do say "You should use Linux" often. They do it at the right time to make such suggestions even when the suggestion itself is stupid. It isn't recomended as a solution to a compleatly unrelated problem.
My TV show was cancled, It wouldn't have been had I switched to Windows.
It's like people think if they bitch about open source software every time there is a problem people will start thinking open source software is worse than commertal counterparts.
and on that now if Second Life ever did take that suggestion of not using MySQL that would be the end of Second Life.
Look at my preveous jorurnals you can see I pritty much take a stand that the virus software is the worst solution to a problem that shouldn't even exist.
A short summery.
The problem is due to outdated operating system design.
Virus software can (and has in the past) shut down antivirus protection.
Anti-virus software can only trap the virus AFTER it has had a chance to wreck havoc. Cause irreversable damage up to and including render anti-virus software USELESS.
So what's my bitch now?
How about bogus anti-virus software. It's happend before. A trojen made by some individiual to trick people into running it to catch viruses.
I thought we were past the days when trojens could trick us so I didn't mention it.
Preticularly for virus scans. BUY THE DAM SOFTWARE GODDAMMIT. The free scans do NOTHING.
It gets better. My mother got an update from the manufacter of her computer.
It included anti-spyware software.
A freeware version.
They send it ever freaking time we didn't install the software.
We have anti-virus software and anti-spyware software we didn't need this.
Well ok they insist so it's installed. It's a DEMO not the full version and detects all kinds of viruses.
Only umm nothing else detects those viruses. NOTHING ELSE AT ALL.
So I uninstall and look up the name of the software. Can't find it. But I can find the software takes it's name from a type of scam where fake anti-virus software instals spyware. ...
Thank you anti-virus industry.
Windows - Many viruses including a few manfuactuer supplied virus scanners.
Linux - A few viruses a few worms. None of them work.
MacOsX - One worm and it never worked.
What to do about a Linux virus
I've made my case that Linux is virus resistant. I don't think presuing the subject any ferther in this direction has any meaning.
I wanted to present a diffrent thought on the matter.
Let us say there was a Linux virus and as predicted it became a pleage.
Antivirus software? Firewalls?
Every example of how Linux could get a virus includes one key element. A software bug.
Software bugs are a greater threat than just viruses. Windows is a great example of this. Flawed drivers can criple a system in horrific ways. A flaw in the kernel can crash the system at a critical time.
For that reason GNU/Linux takes software defects very sereously.
It is the antivirus software companys that insist Linux isn't virus resistant. That Linux must take viruses sereously. What they really mean is that Linux users should buy anti-virus software.
How effective would this software be on Linux when there are better alterntives.
There is right now a number of Linux worms and trojens. Where is the anti virus software?
Not nessisary. Fix the security flaws and you'll be fine.
As for firewalls. Yes please but not for the viruses or even the worms.
Hardware firewalls to block hackers. Software firewalls are worthless.
Worms use defects in the protocals you use. You'll open ports in the firewall to permit lagit access and the worms will slide right through them.
Can we let the "Linux to young for virus" myth die now?
Linux was created in the early 1990s based on the Unix design of the 1960s.
First part of this myth is that hackers want access to home users computers not the large Unix servers.
The point of hacking was (and still is) to gain access to the high end computers. Most of them ran Unix or Unix based operating systems.
Trojens and viruses are the ultimat means of hacking into any given computer. If it was truely as easy to make a Unix virus as it is to make a PC virus then every hacker would have at least two Unix viruses in his or her toolkit long before the creation of Dos.
The second part of the myth is that Linux hasn't been around "long enough".
It was only a handful of months after Dos receaved the ability to multitask in the background. At this point in time the vast majority of home users still had Commodore 64s, Apple IIs and other 6502 or 8080 based computers.
IBM PCs were still primaraly small to medium sized business machines.
The viruses were created for and targeted at BBSes. Only a tiny handful of people were expected to be infected. However the viruses were far more powerful than expected.
Linux was already a decade old and had a larger userbase than Dos did when the first clames of Linux being too young.
Now Linux runs on nearly all the servers (the target of every hacker), Linux is older than Dos was, Linux has a larger userbase than Dos did.
Also there were viruses for the Amiga, Atart ST and other platforms that died due to lack of sales.
Size and age weren't the desiding facters.
The ONLY factor involed in the creation of a virus is the possability.
More ProUnix no virus argument
This is annother argument I won't pretend this is the end all.
First to introduce the players (as I see them)
Virus experts: Experts in name only they have no better understanding of viruses than anyone else.
Thies are people who proffit from the sale of anti-virus software.
Unix experts: Not security experts. Experts in how Unix works. The first people to clame Unix is imperveous to viruses.
Security experts: Experts in the security field. Has nothing to do with the virus industry.
What is a virus: A virus is a program that sneaks into your computer by piggybacking on other software.
Once in your system the virus installs itself into other programs on your system.
Unix immunity: Unix software is installed into a secured area of the hard disk. From this area programs can be run but not modifed.
The security defect: There is the argument that a virus could use a security defect to infect a Unix computer. This has been demonstrated and dose work.
However this means the virus has a short window of time when it may infect a computer.
This is very much like the short window of time a virus may infect an antivirus protected system.
With Unix a virus may strike anytime before the defect becomes known. Once the defect is known the virus is nolonger able to infect.
With Windows a virus may strike any system before the virus is known. Once the virus is known the virus may still strike any system not protected by antivirus software.
The defect permitting the virus may be cought and fixed before the virus is known however if it isn't once the virus is known the defect is also known and will be fixed before antivirus software has a chance to make any diffrence.
In short Unix security provides far suppereor protection against viruses than antivirus software. Enough so to make creating Unix viruses far more work than they are worth.
Unix security vs antivirus for protecting against worms.
Worms reguardless of Unix or Windows require a significant software defect to happen.
Antivirus software can not prevent worms from infecting the system and once infected the worm can disable the antivirus software.
Under a properly secured Unix system if a worm dose slip into the system it will likely have restricted access and will be unable to do much damage. Rebooting often flushes the worm from the system.
Also a worm dose it's worst inside an hour of being first release long before a bugfix or signture can be released.
In short Not only do Unix systems have a solution for Unix viruses it's a far better solution than using antivirus software.
Should that change the is already open source antivirus software. Just in case.
Besides windows e-mail infections pass through Unix e-mail servers. There is no better way to deal with e-mail infections than antivirus software. Especally before the e-mail can reach the Windows user.
Pushed away from The Napping Cats dream
I'm just posting this to get things off my chest.
Nothing more nothing less.
Back around 2001 I started RPing on a message board for fans of the online comic "Master Zen Dao Meow" I was one of the few people doing some light roleplaying there.
I created a furry character (later called an avatar) to interact with the characters taken directly from the comic (and RPed by Pat who writes the comic).
The message board evolved into a full blown role play community and Pat clames I've played a major role in this. I think he overstates the matters.
In short after RPing on what is now called "The Dream" with zero complaints you could say I'm familure with the rules.
About November 2003 some of the new artists to the team have desided I'm breaking the rules. The artist is misquoting the rules. It gets strange enough I deside to leave chat and calm down.
When I return annother artist (someone I've never seen before and didn't even know was an artest) starts on me.
I attempt to resolve the issue but that person won't even tell me what is wrong so I drop a note with someone in charge so we can resolve it. The artist in question tells the moderators nothing happend.
In the months that folowed I'm being taunted by annother artist. A friend of the first two.
After about a year of harrasment someone brings up the issue of trolls and how to get rid of them. I bring up there is only one troll and we shouldn't get rid of her.
The first artist shows and clames I'm trying to get rid of the trolling arist.
So I try to sell off my characters. If they are as valuable as Pat clames they should fetch a pritty penny. I sure as hell don't want to be around there any longer.
So the artist who started all this starts accusing me of doing this 3 times before. She says she told me before it was breaking the rules to do so. That is a lie. She also repeates the clame I'm trying to push her friend of the forum that is also a lie.
Pat joins and clears things up. He appears very annoyed with everyone involved however. (Me included).
After the badmouthing I pritty much had enough and said so. The troll artist folows up by trying to put words in my mouth and make me out to be saying I'm leaving becouse of what Pat said when I've made it pritty clear I'm leaving becouse of her ongoing harrasment.
I realise she's just flinging crap just to fling crap and there is no point in responding to her BS so I ignore her.
Later on Pat locks the thread. It's annoying him.
 First time I tried to sell my avatar I only asked if it was possable.
Pat said no. But the wording lead me to beleave he felt only I could handle my characters not that it was actually against the rules.
Second time I wasn't even talking about selling avatars. I was talking about trying to make money to pay my bills. The artist that started this joinned the thread and started trash talking for no apparent reason. I ignored her.
She derailed the thread enough to make it appear this was the second attempt. My long winded post didn't help much so nobody read what I said and instead went on her much shorter trash talk to figure out what I want.
As such I got some very good advice with reguards to my avatar but that really had nothing to do with the issue.
The third time I just came out and tryed to sell the characters and all the rights to same.
Two of the three artists joinned and started trash talking me. Patric clarifed the rules and explained he wasn't going to enforce them.
With that I was pritty well done.
This is what I think really happend.
Pat made a big deal about my involvement with the dream from the very start. This ticked off some of the new artists.
A few months later I'm in a RP with one of thies artists and she starts making like I don't know the rules.
Even before I joinned the dream I was "The Evil Ranter" posting my conservitive opinions on an otherwise libral message board.
I was ruining somebodys libral paradise.
I don't RP her way and she can not handle it.
Somebody discribed her as a lousy artist. I'm not one of the offical artists but I do draw a lot.
The offical artists are paid.
I hope this isn't the reason. All the offical arists (including the obnoxous treo) are better than I am.
It would really suck if the three artist were driving off any artist who didn't suck and mistook me as one one of them. Maybe confused me and Rose (rose being the first offical arist besides Pat and Bret. She drew two of my characters)
With current politics I felt the need to plaster my wishes reguarding life support.
This is to be found on Slashdot, Live Journal and maybe Deviant art (if I feel like it)
There will be a more refined legal document eventually but for now this is the quick and dirty.
If a device is used to sustain my life by preforming the tast of my internal organs and this device dose not fit inside my body or otherwise portable then it should be said that I am not self sustaining.
If my brain is not sending impluses to my body and a device is needed to instruct my heart and lugs to continue to function then I have eather chousen to terminate internal life support or I am no longer in this body. In eather case this mean I am no longer self sustaining.
If I am not animate in that I do not move of my own accord and I am not self sustaining then please discontinue the effort to maintain my body.
On death donate my body to science. The plants have enough fertaliser. Artifical organs are becomming commen place. However for scientific research nothing can beat a real body.
What really makes Microsoft evil anyway?
Some people like to pick apart the whole "Microsoft is evil" type rant showing how other operating systems do in fact share the same problems found in Windows and other Microsoft products.
The reality is that it's not 1 or 2 problems that make Microsoft evil but the whole pacage.
Microsoft as a monopoly isn't evil. It's undesirable. Os flaws aren't evil they are undesirable. Every complaint isn't evil they alone are undesirable.
Linux has a few undesirable trates so dose MacOs. The Commodore 64, Amiga, Atari ST. There isn't a single system that has ever been on the market that didn't have an undesirable trate.
The Farchild game console Channel F would burn out after so many hours. That is VERY undesirable. Then what? Buy a new Channel F? Not nessisary you could buy anything. No monpoly.
IBM had a near stranglehold on the mainframe industry. But IBM did make reasonably good systems. People had complaints but they did the job.
EA pulled that nifty stunt on the Atari ST buying up all the Atari titles and re-releasing them for the Amiga. But the Amiga was a nice machine and that did EA more damage to themselfs than anyone would like to admit. Also it sure didn't help Amiga any and Atari did themselfs in before EA could do any real damage to Atari.
Every stunt Microsoft pulled was done before. But that hardly makes it ok. I'll forgive Linux for not being user friendly not like it effects me and others will forgive MacOs for being bloated they want the power that results from it not the raw uncut CPU power that comes from streamlining.
But Windows isn't trading off. It's just slapping stuff on and not doing any real work to fix the problems already in place.
Microsoft has an industry of excuses and this is one undesirable trate nobody forgives.
So the end it's not one mistake or one undesirable trate. We could pick and pick and pick. But the shear body of it all is the problem.
Microsoft Windows has a few desirable trates and has a few fans. We should respect that.
However I have one retort to the whole clame "If Linux was as populare as Windows it would have the same problems" There is no reacurence to show this. Windows is unqiue in it's problems where as other platforms had the majority spotlight only Windows had the problems.
No I have two... If Windows lost the spotlight it would die. Microsoft relys on the 90% markeshare to keep Windows alive.
Linux drivers are chipset driven Windows drivers are product driven. If 10% of the PC hardware produced today didn't have Windows drivers Microsoft would be in a world of hurt. Linux was alive and well at only 10% driver support. Maybe someday Linux will have full covrage with EVERY card manufacter making a Linux driver. But Windows couldn't survive with anything less than 100% support.
Fact is before Linux would reach a point where it would have clueless users, viruses or anything else that pleages only Windows users Linux would need at least 45% marketshare. Windows would never survive it and to be totally honnest I don't think Linux would ever make it.
The market will be fragmented between OSes. Linux is just one OS. I don't think anyone had 90% marketshare before and maybe they are right about the "popularity" thing.
Linux thrives on fragmentation. BSD users almost demand it. Unix needs it.
It's all about tradeoffs. Everyone has undesirable trates and so long as that is the case just make sure the product you use dosen't have the trates that are undesirable to you.
If you can.
Can you find the software tools you need on a platform that preforms the way you want?
Today the answer is no. Windows has the tools you need as dose Linux but nither preform the way YOU want.
Unless your not in need of a user friendly environment or willing to baby the computer.
Why do people think Windows is user friendly?
A class in critical thinking
Often said, often wrong
What of the folowing is true and what is false?
Amiga is dead, Macs are for newbies, Linux is hard, Windows is useless.
The answer is: All are nither.
Amiga made a number of computers and when they hit hard times that company died and was bought out by Commodore who sold the latest creation under the name "Amiga 1000".
However Commodore was also facing hard times and puked.
The Amiga name has been passed from company to company and is now owned by a company who has desided to continue the Amiga legacy as software.
However the Amiga lives on supported by the users. The vareous companys that made Amigas have died.
At the time Apple created the Macintosh most business people had no computer trainning.
The Macintosh was designed for this group of individuals.
Reporters, Secretarys, Accountents, Managers.. the vast majorty of whom knew nothing of computers.
In order for the Macintosh to be useful to thies people it needs to be easy AND preform all the complex tasks of powerful business systems of the day.
While most people run businesses from the PC they use software that was originally writen for the mac or based on existing Macintosh titles.
As a net result what your doing on Windows right now is not only doable on the Mac but is most likely a whole lot easier.
Linux wasn't designed as the Mac was. In that I mean it was never made to be used by people who have no trainning in computers.
People familure with Windows have a hard time getting use to Linux.
However this happeds with no other platform. Users of MacOs, OS/2, AmigaOs and Dos have made a smooth transition to Linux but a growing number of Windows users haven't.
Eather there is a fundemental diffrence between Linux and Windows that can be found no where else or Windows users are at bulk assuming everything runs like Windows.
Microsoft is pushing Windows into more and more market sectors than ever before.
However Windows itself has remained fundementally the same sense the beginning.
As a result Windows is being sold to do things it can not do or can't do very well.
This leaves a growing number of users the impression Windows is useless. In fact Windows is quite useful but no operating system is anywhere near as fuctional as Microsoft clames Windows is.
Windows for Warships?
Linux is the only "off the shelf" os vagely close to being able to do the job and that is becouse Linux can be rewriten and can run on any hardware but it is no better than using specalised operating systems or operating systems designed with automation in mind.
However Windows works quite well for a number of tasts. As a media/content client system (such as web browsing and video games) Windows has no match.
Microsofts lost touch with reality
Pk you'd expect such a comment from a Slashdot user. I mean it's a no-brainner that a Linux Zelot like me would think this.
So how could this jernal entry be anything but redundent?
Simple: I have proof.
Remember that ohh so wonderful Microsoft "Get the facts about Linux" the second time Microsoft pulled this.
Well... I just saw the banner ads. ON SLASHDOT. After Slashdot ripped it to hell.
How stupid can you get?
I guess Microsoft has the money to blow.
So thanks for funding Slashdot...
We can debate to hell and back about the details of the two websites. The only point I'm making is Microsoft actually believes advertsing on Slashdot is going to earn them converts.
Eather you believe that Slashdot readers are hard headed SlashBot idiots who wouldn't know inovation if it slapped them accrost the skull
or you believe Microsoft is full of themselfs.
Most people seam to think both.. But thats annother deal.
But to think Microsoft could win over Slashdot users with it's "Facts" website is an act of total idiotcy.
The rare wanabe crossing guard moron
While walking home from work I come to one of those crosswalks where the light says "walk" just long enough to step off the curve.
Halfway accrost this idiot steps up to the light and starts pointing in the air looking at me with this big grin on his face.
I'm like "What in hell" untill I realise he is pointing at the crosswalk light. Well he is trying to. Actually he is just pointing into the air kind of a side effect of the fact that he himself has no clue what he is doing.
As I walk past him he chirps "good morning" and I mumble "morning" but only becouse he seammed to be ready to get in the way if I didn't acknowladge him.
He reminds me of a brainwashed cultist.
Part of me wanted to punch him in the gutt, part wanted to ask what drugs he was on, part wanted to ask why he was pointing in the air like a moron part of me wanted to point to the light when he crossed.
Why do people feel compelled to tell other people what to do instead of pulling there head out of there butts and see the real world?
My own forum is back :)
Meow BBS is back online. Named during a time when there wasn't much consensis as to what to call thies things.
Taco called em forums, later they got called blogs. A lot of people called em BBSes becouse most of them were just a move from the traditional BBS to a website.
I don't want to call it a blog and 'forum' sutes me for a general discription but in the long run it is was and always will be a BBS to me.
It's nice having a Slashdot jernal however...
Capitalism and Communism
You have heard it about as much as I have.
The consistant clame that open source and free software are communist ideas and that monopolists like Microsoft are capitalists.
Communism is simply the idea that everything is regulated by the state and there is no property.
Capitalism is the idea of regulation by free market and all things are property.
Open source and free software is the idea that software should be free and that laws and regulations that make software into property should be abolished.
Should anyone be able to control software or ideas in absence of such laws then he should be free to do so.
Monopolys such as Microsoft seek to use laws to restrict compeating companys.
They do not believe in the free market and desire laws to control information at the same time they break such laws to benifit themselfs.
Microsoft is as much communist as it is capitalist and the GPL community is as much capitalist as it is communist.
The fact is open source and free software is taking the issue from a compleatly diffrent angle and the classic lables are simply obsolete.
Open source is preticularly capitalistic much to the annoyence of the free software community but as we seek a commen goal it matters not.
This remains true of the commertal software community. There are monopolists such as Microsoft and the entruprenual such as Apple. Steve Woz and Bill Gates both seek to use the laws to control but act in totally diffrent behavures.
Steve Woz believes in the entriprenual aspect. Let inovation lead develupment then control your works. Woz would never object to a home computer with an Apple like design should it be devoid of apple compatability software such as Apples ROMs and DOS.
Bill Gates believes in the monopolistic aspect. Any way you can make people pay for your software is ok.
A better way to slice it is libertarianism vs corpratism.
The consept that we are better off with out laws or at least most laws. Legal minimalism.
Vs the consept of the government is there to protect all aspects of life. Or at least most aspects of life. Full legal involvment.
"Free Enterprise" "Free Speach" and "Free software" aren't multially exclusive. They are uniform. One falls they all fall.
"Free Enterprise" is not a garenty to proffits only the freedom to try.
"Free software" is not a shield against selling software only a protection that reguardless of how the software is distributed the software remains free to be distributed again.
"Free Speach" is not a protection against responsabilitys that come with speach but a garenty that you shall not be jailed for speaking your mind. You may lose your friends, job and respect but you won't go to jail for it.
In todays world you may not discuss how to build certan matereals or preform certan functions in sofware.
While it may be true that doing those things may be illegal for reasonable or obscure reasons the publishing of HOW should never be censored.
In a world that freely admits knowladge is power is not control over that knowladge automaticly a terrany over the masses?
All writings of certan historical figures may be clamed as the intelectual property of the famaly. As such that famaly has absolut control over history and how our kids will learn it. They alone shall deside how the deceased shall be seen.
At least once this frame of ownership over history has been used to sillence a public debate over a related issue.
On more than one occasion the famaly of an individal did not have that individuals best intrests in mind. A single famaly member (usually the child) can rebell in the most extream way beomming a living embodyment of everything the public figure is against.
Should this child come to control the legacy and works of the public figure the damage to history could be illreversable.
Annother example is when a populare public figure turns out to be the villen later in life the famaly may act to supress this fact and sillence historical travistys.
Microsoft philosophy vs Linux philosophy
Someone posted a comment that struck me as obserd at the time but later on with reflection I understand where the idea came from.
There is a whole philosophy around Linux that is almost cult like in folowing.
Linux folows the philosophy of knowladge being the access key and ignorence being it's own restriction.
You can't drive unless you know how. You can read or write untell you learn to do so. That is the restriction. There are no others. The idea of keeping knowladge from wemen is obsolete and proven to be an artifical limitation by means of artifically induced ignorence.
If you can't drive you obveously can't get anywhere. If you can't code you can't write programs. If you don't know how to use a computer you can't.
Historicly this is a falty approch but it works.
Let us remember the green card spammers used Unix shell acounts. Not MacOs not Windows and not even Linux but an honnest to goddess Unix account. With code in perl to do the grunt work.
However we had more problems with "newbe" users when AoL provided Internet access with some AoL users thinking Usenet was all there was to the Internet and one AoL user actually clamming America Online created the Internet.
Microsoft has a diffrent approch.
With Microsoft ignorence is not a restriction and knowladge is not a liccens.
We are told time and time again if the kind of users that used Windows were using Linux there'd be a lot more problems in the Linux world.
An intresting charge... Solarus land would argue that Linux land has such users and they provide quite remarkable proof thow I hardly needed it myself as I can tell you for a fact such people do use Linux with out any problems at all.
Where is my proof? Me. I'm not some uber geek. I got kicked off my first Unix shell account in the week I signed up.
What makes me specal that rises me above the "avrage user" isn't my brains or some geek quest. I use Linux becouse I refuse to pay for software. If I were to use Windows I'd be pirating it and quite frankly Linux is the legal route for me rather than the cheaper route.
But I do use Linux and it challanges me to understand what I'm doing. I can't fling about in ignorence. I need to learn how to use my computer so that I may use my computer. It's just that simple.
The Microsoft philosophy is that of "trusted computing" the computer manufacter is in charge. They get to deside if you should have access to the Internet or not. They deside what software you should use they deside what websites you can visit they deside what e-mail you can have they deside what features are good and what are evil.
The computer manufacter is the ultimate judge of what you should have.
Becouse the avrage user is dumb. The avrage user dosen't have a certification or specal trainning.
The oversight philosophy. One large monolythic entity that can be sure all are good. Virus writers are individuals outside the loop and one way to stop them is to forbid them access to software develupment tools.
Annother way is to develup a secure operating system.
Then there is the Apple philosophy....
(Apple users always feel left out and in this case I think the Apple philosophy really matters to the topic)
Ignorence isn't a limitation...
But knowladge IS the liccens.
Apple provides the foundation. The computer the operating system etc. You can start up reasonably quick.
From there if you want to code you learn to code. If you want to do something you learn how.
But unlike the Linux philosophy it dosen't require the study of a bunch of unrelated things.
I'd liken Linux to a University with a bunch of BS courses to get to what you really want.
Windows to a toltalitarian government where the gatekeepers are in charge.
Apple to "real life" just do it.
But other anologs work...
Linux is the school of hard knocks.. Learnning the hard way.
Windows is the DMV pass a test get a liccens.
Apple is Nike.. Just do it..
Linux is the Internet download compile research and study.
Windows is the TV or radio "We deside what to will or won't know"
Apple is the libary and book store. Find a nice big fat book on the subject and if it's not enough find annother nice big fat book.
Linux is your car and the tools to repair it. How is something you must learn.
Windows is the macanic who fixes it for you.
Apple is the "how to fix your car" book.
Thies are not perfict anologs of course...
The eductaion system is Linux with all the BS courses.
The education system is Windows with "We will deside what you need to learn" adadtude.
The education system is Apple with "No child is left behind"
The education system is IBM a large monolythic entity who is beaten up and largly the target of much aggression.
The education system is BeOS sabotoged yet doing the best it can to survive and failing.
The education system is BSD a long tradition and history.
The edication system is Geoworks.. nobody believes in it anymore.
And that shows you how an anolog can go anywhere you want to take it...
I may be in love with anologs but I know the weakness. So use it as an oversimplication....
The Mac Os of examples....
Ouch.... Sorry Apple users.... Ouch...
Hay Don't blame me Apple for years sold Mac as "Newbe only"... at least your not like Amiga.. sold as a toy...
Moderators on the same stuff as Darl McBride
Every now and then I see a moderation I disagree with. Ok thats not a big deal it's going to happen from time to time.
But it's been happening with am amazing frequency as of late and I'm wondering of Darl McBride hasn't dumpped some of his stash into the drinks of some /. mods.
I'll give you three wonderful examples.
1. +5 Funny (We don't know why)
One of my posts was modded up +5 funny and I'm seeing this happen a lot. I'll ignore it for others. But I know for a fact that post of mine wasn't funny. I don't think it was deserving of any sort of moderation to be honnest.
Then someone replied to it saying basicly they didn't understand what I was saying. Well if anything that's an automatic mod DOWN.
There is nothing funny about incoherent ramblings and I'll say that even if the ramblings are my own.
2. It also appears someones modding his opinion. One post of mine was modded down 'Troll' and why? Apparently becouse the mod has a diffrent opinion. Gezz you don't get mod points to mod down people for having a diffrent opinion.
Now I put this all aside. It's not a big deal. So a few mods suffered temporary brain damage or something. Or maybe I'm just missing something I don't know.
3. I don't care what you think The "Overrated" and "Underrated" moderations are for correcting moderation. When something is modded up to much you get to nock down a point.
Now I've seen some articals were we get mod wars. I'd get +5 and a few mods would "-1 overrated" me down to +2 or +3 then more mods would bring me back up and so on. This tug of war is nothing more than obnoxous. No I don't aprove. If an artical gets enough attention to have a tug of war I've earnned that +5 in spades.
But that's just a disagreement. You must know I'm going to disagree with every mod down on me. Thats not fair to snipe at.
How about -1 overrated when I've not accepted my automatic +1 and nobody has moderated me up. Now I realise some people have some ideas as to what each moderation level means and thats why people mod -1 overrated but you shouldn't even be allowed to -1 overrated a post at 1.
If it's mod 1 and not a troll or off topic it's not overrated.
I've been seeing a lot of strange mods. Not just on me but everywhere and a few recent mods that make Darl McBride look rational.
And annother "-1 overated" moderation for no apparent reason.
I'm going to make a guess here that this a mod with a grudge against me.
What could that be? Dose it matter?
People who think abusing the Slashdot moderation system for revenge is effective aren't rational to start with.
I can think of a bunch of reasons someone might hate me. Many of them external to Slashdot. Not a one justifys vengence.
Microsoft running Linux?
Ok so everyone makes a big fitt over using the same os you try to get everyone else to use.
Well makes sense really. I mean if SCO is trying to get everyone to use SCOs products shouldn't they use SCOs products themselfs?
Well in the same vain Microsoft has recently switched it's main website over to Linux.
I'd drop this on Slashdot but they just did it recently and may switch back.
I still find this slightly funny.
Why must I suffer idots?
At work I've been working on a night vision camra for the last few days. The camra works the capture card in the computer works the software however. Still looking. Using Windows.
So while I'm setting up the camra someone desides to tell me how someone on the news clames the camra can be destroied by a laser pointer.
Just a quicky on that. The lens on a camra scatters the pointers beam so yes it will blind the camra so will a flashlight. But it won't damage it.
Instead of arguing the point* I point out the computer is programmed to record the persons picture.
*(After all I know how strongly he clings to his myths)
He insists it won't do anything at night untill I point out it's a night vision camra.
(I know better than to try and explain infer red to someone who believes obveous myths)
He then insists it won't work during the DAY. I point out I can turn night vision off.
(I know better than to try an explain how an infer red camra to someone who could think that night vision means 'dosen't work at day time)
Then he clames the night vision image can't be used for facal recognition becouse it's not photograph quality.
All I said at that point is "I've had no such problems" and he just repeates his clame.
It's pritty scarry when someone can say "facal recognition" and "phorograph quality" and not know what he is saying.
("Facal recognition" by means of software. The human eye can pick detail from the most burry of images hence the term has no meaning here.
Of course the camra dosn't produce photograph quality. Nither dose my digital camra. This has pritty much nothing to do with security camras. Unless of course someone invents a servalence camra that can record at photograph quality.)
He's basicly throwing around technical terms he heard and thinks he knows what they mean.
On a side note I didn't want to talk anymore becouse the camra had some sort of defect reguarding the range of it's infer red vision. I'm working on a hack to fix that. It involves a battery powered infer red flood lamp.
Yet annother SCO analasis
How perfictly Slashdot. Yet annother SCO analasis that really dosen't mean anything to the public at large. Do I care? Nope.
At the core of this is the clame that IBM put SCOs intelectual property into Linux and as a result violated SCOs liccens.
Some of that intelectual property turns out to in fact be IBMs property liccensed to SCO not the other way around.
At the same time SCO violates the GPL and it's own liccens with Novel to resell Unix.
Looks like SCO thinks only SCOs liccenses matter.