PPC Linux on the client end is really bad, even when you have a system that's not locked down like the PS3. I used to run it on an iBook G4 -- what the hell was I thinking!Dr. Cameron said:Absolutely! With 256mb of ram part of which reserved, CPU performance killed by the hypervisor, no video acceleration, one of the slowest hard drives, the meager 380 watts of power consumption and no included keyboard/mouse it would be the perfect linux box. How many firefox tabs could you open before running out of ram? one? Also, aren't you forgetting the lack of some important softwares that is not available on the PPC platform like, I dunno, Flash? I bet there is a full dozen of sites somewhere that still support flash 7 so you'd better add them to your bookmarks before they get sucked into the empty void of obsolescence.Ray7 said:*snip*
Discussions
-
-
I did the same thing, and found mostly the same results. I actually really liked having Live.com as my home page since it gave that nice new image every day; it was kind of exciting. Eventually I went back to using about:blank as my home page since it just loaded a lot faster (especially on flaky connections) and google as my search engine since I was wasting time searching twice falsely believing Live search's bad search results were the result of Live search.KevinB said:
I made an effort to use Live instead of Google for a while to see what I thought of it, I just set it as my home page. I have never bothered going back.Maddus Mattus said:*snip*
It gives me nearly identical results to Google. I know this because sometimes whne I am searching and can't find what I need, I get annoyed at Live and paste the same query into Google expecting it to magically give me the answer and it gives me pretty much the same results.
I do miss youtube integration, I wish they would add this to Live.
Live also does some very cool stuff in the 'vertical' markets like :
http://search.live.com/xrank
https://ssl.search.live.com/health/results.aspx?q=flu&form=HEALTH
which are promising for things to come.
So, do I think Live is better than Google, definitely not, do I think that Google is better than Live, maybe by about 1% and certainly not worth my time and effort to go Tools > Options and change my home page. And just before I get accused of it, I am not just a fanboy saying it is the same because it is a MS product, I own an iPhone and use several Google products, Google search just isn't that much better anymore....
-
Why not just change your avatar caption to say "I hate default explorer" and spare the rants every week.Koogle said:
Explorer is still hopelessly rubbish in Win7 last time I checked.. which should mean it will come out to be the exact same crap in the final release.. so just thought I'd sayEvil SEO said:*snip*
I hope for MS sake Quizo comes back to update his explorer shell addon, it at least makes using the sh\te Explorer bareble for the power user or those that just
like to get things done and not have to mess around a with clunky pile of noob crap.
Its just a shame 1 man can't fully replace and improve all the rest of retardation in explorer and all that associated with it like *cough* uber crap WDS implementation etc
-
Dell too, and they have much better deals than System76ManipUni said:Nobody said that... Walmart has been selling them for years. -
I get the feeling it will have something to do with MED-V; improving XP app compatibility in 7 by including it by default would be a big selling point.
-
Except it lacks full compatability with PDFs. There were far too many occasions where I'd run into PDFs with stuff missing because of Evince's crappiness.Bass said: -
Ubuntu said:matthews said:*snip*
Difference: Microsoft changes their driver model once in a blue moon for good reasons, whereas Linux kernels and distros break compatibility all the time for no good reason.
The good reason being DRM (Blu Ray) and the official reason being Aero running potentially buggy apps.
I've used alien -- it doesn't work.
A bad idea because it bypasses the standard tools for installing DEB packages.
And honestly -- outside of core system components and updates like PowerShell or IE releases and drivers which are different because of fundamentally different driver models, how often have I seen versions of apps "custom compiled" for Vista/7? Never.
There are always minor bugs that you need to correct when porting your software to a new version of Windows - then you can make your binary run on both versions of Windows. And besides your honest statement means that one shouldn't upgrade because he's getting just more of the old stuff in a new package - thus Windows 7 will be very compatible with Vista because it's essentially Vista SP3 - why should you pay for a SP?
Microsoft has the best platform for developers, which leads to a rich software ecosystem, which leads to people wanting to use it, which leads to it being included by default by OEMs.
Try it this way: MS gives huge discounts the OEMs who decide to preinstall Windows on their machines and not sell any systems without an OS or with Linux.
Look at what happens when OEMs go for pre-installing Linux -- return rates jump 4x as much, customer satisfaction goes way down, customer support calls go way up, and despite being more expensive Windows still dominates 90+% of the netbook market.
That's because for new technology to replace the old one it needs to be 10 times better than the old one.
the inescapable fact is that Windows is a solid platform for developers, and thus a solid platform for consumers.
"It was inevitable Mr Anderson" - BTW VisualStudio is bloated like most MS apps.
The good reason being DRM (Blu Ray) and the official reason being Aero running potentially buggy apps.
Or you know a better API? A greater push away from running drivers in kernel mode? Not to mention the DRM in Vista allows the movies to play; in Linux you don't even get the option. Content producers want to be able to protect their stuff; just ignoring that won't help users who just want to watch a movie on their computer.
There are always minor bugs that you need to correct when porting your software to a new version of Windows - then you can make your binary run on both versions of Windows.
That's what #ifdefs are for; again not an option in Linux development because of the inconsistent and constantly shifting ABI.
And besides your honest statement means that one shouldn't upgrade because he's getting just more of the old stuff in a new package - thus Windows 7 will be very compatible with Vista because it's essentially Vista SP3 - why should you pay for a SP?
Upgrading versions of Ubuntu never works properly in my experience; there are always massive problems that result, especially if you've done the requisite fiddling to get the old version to work. Not to mention you're suggesting upgrading to a broken alpha version to get a new web browser. What do you do if you want a new Firefox on Vista, or XP, or 2000 for that matter? Install the new version; no fuss, no muss.
EDIT: just so you know, I know FF3.5 isn't out yet, but what I described is basically exactly the experience I went through trying to go from FF1 to 1.5, and from 1.5 to 2. I jumped ship a few months before FF3 came out, but I have no doubt the experience would have been similar, just as it will be trying to go from FF3 to 3.5.
Upgrading from Vista to 7 is silky smooth, and 7 offers new features; hardly a service pack which is supposed to be just a rollup of patches. -
Such as Adobe Reader (it was still called that way then) 6 months after Vista shipped requiring 7 UAC prompts to run. And a lot of other apps dating back to Windows XP which refused to run at all.Ubuntu said:matthews said:*snip*Currently, every program I'm running are in user-mode. Very, very, very, VERY extremely rarely does an app need to run in admin mode all the time, and usually they're poorly written apps from Windows 98.
Such as Adobe Reader (it was still called that way then) 6 months after Vista shipped requiring 7 UAC prompts to run. And a lot of other apps dating back to Windows XP which refused to run at all.
Firefox 3.5 comes out and the repo won't update to it.
That's exactly the case - MS releases IE 8.0 but it won't appear in Automatic Updates for Windows (installed as a recommended update) until April 27, 2009 - how come? - if you want bleeding edge update to the Alpha version of Ubuntu 9.04 and you will get it in your repo sooner.
your nvidia drivers don't work because the kernel maintainers decided to break binary compatibility again.
Which is the reason why major graphics card vendors couldn't get their drivers working with WDDM on Vista when MS decided to break compatibility for a LONG time after the official release.
How about you're using Ubuntu and want to install an app that's only in a custom built Debian repository. You add it to your apt-sources.list only to find that you have a ton of updates. Being the diligent user you are you of course update them all, only to find your entire system broken because Ubuntu and Debian, both of which use the "STANDARD" deb file are completely incompatible.
Dependency issues - sure - if your package depends on an older version of some library while there is a newer version of that library installed in the system that other packages depend on then there is a conflict - luckily you may bet on the fact that the project has since been forked and there is a more up-to-date version of it for you distro although under a different name.
How about those other "standards" like RPM, ebuild, tgz, etc etc, none of which are compatible not just with each other, not just between distros, but between POINT RELEASES of distros.
Then there is a command to repack RPM into DEB which is the best solution when you need to install and RPM package on Ubuntu (which is not something you world do very often since most of the time you have a choice to download the one you need if you want to install something from SourceForge just as you choose the WinXP or Vista version of software).
Besides that, what if a malicious user got into the repository;
Like I said before - this is not a viable business model that porn sites can rely on to got more subscriptions to their services - this can happen but not at a scale it happens on Windows.
I know all the lies freetards like you tell;
Yes it's true - in case you haven't noticed I am a freetard - a regular reader of The Register and Fake Steve like any self-respecting freetard and I and I'm not even saving the fricken panda.
I know what it's like to have to go through the un-necessary upgrade mess that never works properly every 6 months;
Or to wait 5 years for a new release of Windows which falls short of expectations.
Linux is perfect, Windows sucks
This in not my point at all - what I'm trying to get across is that the ONLY reason why Windows has got a 90% market share is not because it's the best product on the market - it's because at a certain point in time in the 90s, due to some historic coincidence it got the dominant market position and not MS locks its users into a dependency because their data is stored in Word documents on NTFS partitions and "dir" is the DOS command they learned at school rather than ls - and now they are scared by people like you into not trying anything else.
Yes, having a system where you can customize it to the point of running it on a huge 8000+ system custom built server farm is useful if you want to put the time/money into implementing it...
That's strange - I thought you were going to say that Windows Azure is the thing you should be using when you need a server farm
Difference: Adobe Reader works great -today- on Vista. And you're just proving my point; old apps that were written poorly even in the day they were made are the ones that have problems.
That's exactly the case - MS releases IE 8.0 but it won't appear in Automatic Updates for Windows (installed as a recommended update) until April 27, 2009 - how come? - if you want bleeding edge update to the Alpha version of Ubuntu 9.04 and you will get it in your repo sooner.
The difference is you can install IE8 on your machine if you want to, and it will work perfectly; your options for Ubuntu are broken Firefox or unusable alpha releases.
Which is the reason why major graphics card vendors couldn't get their drivers working with WDDM on Vista when MS decided to break compatibility for a LONG time after the official release.
Difference: Microsoft changes their driver model once in a blue moon for good reasons, whereas Linux kernels and distros break compatibility all the time for no good reason.
Then there is a command to repack RPM into DEB which is the best solution when you need to install and RPM package on Ubuntu (which is not something you world do very often since most of the time you have a choice to download the one you need if you want to install something from SourceForge just as you choose the WinXP or Vista version of software).
I've used alien -- it doesn't work. It will still install things the way the RPM has it set out, which is invariably different from the way Debian derived distros lay things out; it will still go for versions of libraries and dependencies that often are custom compiled or are old and won't be available in your repo. And honestly -- outside of core system components and updates like PowerShell or IE releases and drivers which are different because of fundamentally different driver models, how often have I seen versions of apps "custom compiled" for Vista/7? Never.
Like I said before - this is not a viable business model that porn sites can rely on to got more subscriptions to their services - this can happen but not at a scale it happens on Windows.
It doesn't have to be porn site; if a black-hat can get in odds are they're going to just for kicks. Money is important for them too, but look at how many sites get hacked just so jerks can change the page to say "hacked by BLANK".
This in mot my point at all - what I'm trying to get accrossis that the ONLY reason why Windows has got a 90% market share is not because it's the best product on the market - it's because at a cartain point in time in the 90s, due to some historic coincidence it got the dominant market position and not MS locks its users into a dependency because their data is stored in Word documents on NTFS partitions and "dir" is the DOS command they learned at school rather than ls - and now they are scared by people like you into not trying anything else.
Oh BS. Microsoft has the best platform for developers, which leads to a rich software ecosystem, which leads to people wanting to use it, which leads to it being included by default by OEMs. Look at what happens when OEMs go for pre-installing Linux -- return rates jump 4x as much, customer satisfaction goes way down, customer support calls go way up, and despite being more expensive Windows still dominates 90+% of the netbook market. You can pretend like the customer "doesn't know any better" or "hasn't given it a chance" or "hasn't tried hard enough", but the inescapable fact is that Windows is a solid platform for developers, and thus a solid platform for consumers.
That's strange - I thought you were going to say that Windows Azure is the thing you should be using when you need a server farm
Hey, big suprise! You don't even know what Azure is. -
Compared to how many different incompatible distros and kernel versions? Suprising as it may be to you, Win32 is really the only platform you need to target on Windows unless your app needs more than 4GB of address space. If you do, than you probably have the resources to handle the cost of compiling a 64-bit version (better yet just target .NET).Ubuntu said:RoyalSchrubber said:*snip*1st) How long did it take MS to deal with the shatter attack issue, can this problem ever be resolved for every scenario?
2nd) IE can save web pages to your file system therefore it's not sandboxed in the strict meaning of the word - however there may be rendering components such as mshtml.dll which perhaps are sandboxed which is a good idea given the number of security issues associated with it in the past.The dll hell is larely gone.
How can it be gone when the majority of users still sits on Windows XP and parallel to that you have got Vista and now Windows 7 – don' you think that making your software run across 3 systems is quite a challenge – now add the x86 and x64 issue and you end up with 6 versions of your binaries to make it run on “Windows”.
It's your dämn fault if you install dangerous software, nobody forces you and any sane person is expected to first checks source of software.
First of all how do I know if it's dangerous – it's closed source, perhaps it has been tampered with by somebody, and of course I can check the signature but then most of the software you install is not digitally signed – nVidia drivers weren't signed for years and users were advised to click on the “Continue anyway” button. The reason that it's not digitally signed is that MS takes advantage of the signing process to make the developers commit to making the app run in Windows the way that suits MS and not the user for instance would you get a digital signature when your product name was “Windows Commander” - not until you change the name to Total Commander right? Can you sign your apps when your company's name is TomTom – most certainly not.
it's naivety of inexperienced user to be blamed in both cases
Or when you insert somebody's flash disk and under default configuration it runs the Autorun.inf malware that was installed on it on some other machine – you are to blame for not holding the Shift key.
-
Ubuntu said:bureX said:*snip*
My point is... Linux is not more secure than Windows and hiding behind its tiny market share and presenting it as a security feature is a really dumb thing to do.
I would say there are 3 aspects to security in Linux:
1st) a user mode which works, that programs actually work in rather than UAC which is a combination of running in user and root mode that causes all kinds of problems - to name just a few: installer issues, MS software bypasses it, certain windows components bypass it (this causes security issues), copy-protection in games bypasses it, you have to elevate from time to time anyway for compatibility reasons, still different behaviour for signed and unsigned apps, different behaviour for apps market as compatible with it, apps that are not marked but perhaps could be compatible, apps that Windows has got patches for to make them run properly - does it remind anybody the IE standards, nearly-there standards compliant, quirks mode etc. issue where the web server wonders whether to run the buggy version of the page that will work properly or perhaps it will be broken on a browser that is not broken but manifests itself as compatible with the broken browser etc.
2nd) the instller packages format is standarized so at least you can uninstall anything that you installed and the installer doesn't overwrite new versions of libraries with old ones etc.
3rd) it's highly unlikely to get malware from your repo because the software is open-source, there are no 100 trial registry cleaners, system optimisers, dvd-recorders, cd-audio rippers etc. that you can get from tucows for Windows therefore it's not that difficult to ensure compatibility and that no malicious code is inserted into the software that is avaliable because the open-source community doesn't fork their projects like crazy or create the 100th clone of some lame app for audio playback etc.
[1st) a user mode which works, that programs actually work in rather than UAC which is a combination of running in user and root mode that causes all kinds of problems
What are you talking about? Currently, every program I'm running are in user-mode. Very, very, very, VERY extremely rarely does an app need to run in admin mode all the time, and usually they're poorly written apps from Windows 98. Yes, a few background processes do run in admin mode, but so do daemons in Linux.
The point of running in user mode is to reduce the number of targets a malicious program can use as a vector to taking control of the system, and Vista/7 accomplish this; UAC is used to virtualize permissions for admin (or lower permissions, like in IE7/8) just as sudo/gksudo do.
2nd) the instller packages format is standarized so at least you can uninstall anything that you installed and the installer doesn't overwrite new versions of libraries with old ones etc.
This is true, as long as you stay within the box of your repository. Oh look! Firefox 3.5 comes out and the repo won't update to it. You want to use it, but there's no deb available from Ubuntu. You could try installing the binary on Mozilla's site, but that won't work properly because the Firefox included in Ubuntu has a bunch of hacks on it to get it to play nice. You decide to use it anyway, despite the problems. Uh oh! You need libcrap.4.2.so and you have libcrap4.1.999.so. The only way to get it is to compile from source, and so you do that, only to find you don't have a compiler by default in ubuntu. You then apt-get install build-essential, only to find libcrap.4.2.so requires the latest speed hack in the latest version of GCC. So you go on Ubuntuforums, go through a "15 easy steps" technique to get all the libs you need and finally get it in, only to find out while installing libcrap.4.2.so you accidentally erased libcrap4.1.999.so breaking compatibility with like half the apps on your system.
Uh! Time for a new kernel point release; suddenly VMWare, flash and your nvidia drivers don't work because the kernel maintainers decided to break binary compatibility again.
How about you're using Ubuntu and want to install an app that's only in a custom built Debian repository. You add it to your apt-sources.list only to find that you have a ton of updates. Being the diligent user you are you of course update them all, only to find your entire system broken because Ubuntu and Debian, both of which use the "STANDARD" deb file are completely incompatible. How about those other "standards" like RPM, ebuild, tgz, etc etc, none of which are compatible not just with each other, not just between distros, but between POINT RELEASES of distros.
3rd) it's highly unlikely to get malware from your repo because the software is open-source, there are no 100 trial registry cleaners, system optimisers, dvd-recorders, cd-audio rippers etc. that you can get from tucows for Windows therefore it's not that difficult to ensure compatibility and that no malicious code is inserted into the software that is avaliable because the open-source community doesn't fork their projects like crazy or create the 100th clone of some lame app for audio playback etc.
Pretty much all open-source communities do is fork their projects or recreate the wheel. Ever hear of OpenOffice, GNOME office, and KOffice? How about Pidgin, FunPidgin, and Digsby? Or the sound mess with OSS, ALSA, ESD, Arts, Phonon, Gstreamer, and PulseAudio? Besides that, what if a malicious user got into the repository; suddenly the one place to get all your apps has apps marked as important updates and they contain malware. What if a piece of software had a distro specific hack applied to it at the downstream level by a package maintainer that created a security vulnerability; suddenly your SSH key is predictable!
You can't fool me; I used Linux long enough to know what it's all about. I know all the lies freetards like you tell; I know what it's like to have to go through the un-necessary upgrade mess that never works properly every 6 months; I know what it's like to distro hop and distro hop hoping that a new distro will fix all my problems; I know what it's like to live in a delusional world where Linux is perfect, Windows sucks, everything just started getting better 18 months ago, anything it doesn't have is "just around the corner", and Microsoft is on it's deathbed. It's a lie; it's a boldfaced lie and nothing more. Yes, having a system where you can customize it to the point of running it on a huge 8000+ system custom built server farm is useful if you want to put the time/money into implementing it, but for me and my purposes I'd rather just throw a few hundred dollars at a problem and have a system that works really well, is battle tested, and has a great software ecosystem both on the desktop and on the server.
