It's not the Gates, it's the bars
- Thread starter Monkeynut
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 10,607
- Location
- Sussex, UK
I hope Gates burns in hell lol. Seriously though Microsoft products suck a lot, overpriced, DRM, and in vista's case un-usable.
It's a nice change from this "Awww Gates is going, we all love him" crap.
The Windows forum is just a few clicks away.
It's a nice change from this "Awww Gates is going, we all love him" crap.
The Windows forum is just a few clicks away.
He does have a point though, i always think Stallman comes across very bitter. And that article is very one sided
He does have a point though, i always think Stallman comes across very bitter. And that article is very one sided
That's true but he was ruining my thread.
Please elaborate.
The way I see it is: If you want a desktop system which you can customise hardware wise to your hearts' content and pretty much know it will work with minimal effort, you want a Windows system. I couldn't care less if Mr. Gates was found to be a convicted paedophile, I get what works and I'm happy with that.
These attacks on proprietary software are silly, too. Few musicians release tabs of their work; you don't see KFC handing out their 'secret recipes'. People work to create these things, probably a damn sight less hard than somebody worked to create and maintain a fully featured operating system, they deserve to be able to distribute and get paid for it in whichever way they see fit, you also have the right to say you don't want it.
That said, I didn't realise the BBC had become a tech tabloid. It's the sort of crap I'd expect the Inquirer the write up. :\
These attacks on proprietary software are silly, too. Few musicians release tabs of their work; you don't see KFC handing out their 'secret recipes'. People work to create these things, probably a damn sight less hard than somebody worked to create and maintain a fully featured operating system, they deserve to be able to distribute and get paid for it in whichever way they see fit, you also have the right to say you don't want it.
That said, I didn't realise the BBC had become a tech tabloid. It's the sort of crap I'd expect the Inquirer the write up. :\
It just works with minimal effort because M$ and your hardware OEM made it work and in a way they want it to work for you. Customising is not really an option other than choosing what bits your computer should have.
i agree. People have a choice.
It isnt BBC crap. its a POV by somebody and it makes some very good points. Whether you agree or not is something else. I dont agree in trying to force issues like M$ and others do just like i dont like forcing 'free' software on people.
Good Article, but obviously bias - which is both good and bad. The BBC are publishing people's opinions (which will always have a bias) = good. Some of the replies in this thread show why it is bad (which is because those posters can't read..)
Microsoft are yet to invent anything. Everything they market is either bought, stolen, or inferior but top because of their monopoly. Their technology is slow, bloated to the point of obesity, out-dated and restrictive beyond frustration.
What gets me is that Microsoft do not realise they would terrifically excel by opening their source. Sure, there would be an initial wave of extra virii, but any and all problems would be fixed by people on the world wide web in the blink of an eye. The sheer idiotic crap that microsoft have that hinder the faeces out of the users experience would be made redundant ("Windows Needs You Permisson To Coninue!" anyone?)
.. and most of all, their software would open out to so much more, currently the market has to bend over backwards for them, when it should be them bending over for the market.
Microsoft are yet to invent anything. Everything they market is either bought, stolen, or inferior but top because of their monopoly. Their technology is slow, bloated to the point of obesity, out-dated and restrictive beyond frustration.
What gets me is that Microsoft do not realise they would terrifically excel by opening their source. Sure, there would be an initial wave of extra virii, but any and all problems would be fixed by people on the world wide web in the blink of an eye. The sheer idiotic crap that microsoft have that hinder the faeces out of the users experience would be made redundant ("Windows Needs You Permisson To Coninue!" anyone?)
.. and most of all, their software would open out to so much more, currently the market has to bend over backwards for them, when it should be them bending over for the market.
I agree that MS should open their source, and, personally, that their monopoly on the market and what is almost brainwashing (in inducing young people to their products before they have a chance to choose for themselves) make them a slightly nasty, if hugely succesful, company.
However, this seems to be a good place to ask something that I have wondered for a good while now: what is wrong with DRM, and why is it anything to do with MS? Surely it is down to the creator of the file, not the OS, whether it has DRM? To me it seems unethical for somebody who creates a game to not be able to restrict its usage etc. This choice should be and, as far as I can tell, is, up to the person who makes the product and not the person who made the OS. Can anyone explain this for me, as I have been wondering about it for some time!
However, this seems to be a good place to ask something that I have wondered for a good while now: what is wrong with DRM, and why is it anything to do with MS? Surely it is down to the creator of the file, not the OS, whether it has DRM? To me it seems unethical for somebody who creates a game to not be able to restrict its usage etc. This choice should be and, as far as I can tell, is, up to the person who makes the product and not the person who made the OS. Can anyone explain this for me, as I have been wondering about it for some time!
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2007
- Posts
- 2,408
As far as I understand it Windows UAC on Vista is much like su/sudo or logging in as root on Linux - Its a required permissions check, for security reasons.
Windows will never open their source, at least not for a good few years - They are still turning a disgusting profit, and therefore have no reason to.
You understand wrong, UAC is nothing like su/sudo which is a for asking the user, only when required, for root credentials purely for doing things that only the root user should be able to do (eg changing system configs), it does not (like UAC commonly does) routinely ask you to authorize the simple act of running certain executables you by definition as a user already have permission to run. Windows and Linux security models cannot really be compared. Having said that though I personally don't like what sudo does and dont use it, su does the job much cleaner.
Last edited:
Wrong. UAC does the complete opposite of sudo/root. UAC asks you *everytime* I want to run something, or allow a change. There is no way to say "Yes, I am sure, now **** off and let me get on with it." Where as logging in as root on my box, I am root.. I do not need to be asked everytime I want to run something. sudo also does this when configured correctly.
sudo has it's advantages, it combines the env of root and the user using it. In the commericial market it is a necessity if you want to pass some audits like Sarbanes Oxely, for example logging who is doing what - you can't do that as root, but with sudo you can.
