You can buy a 3 GB drive
for that price -- and that's the upgrade
! I mean, that sort of pricing is absurd!
Yeah, $150 for a 3 GB hard drive would be absurd, considering my micro SD card costs a fifth of that and holds ten times more.
Actually it's sometimes surprising how many things do have this that just are very uncommon knowledge. Granted, MS's shell and terminal (especially terminal) suck ass.
At any rate, Windows ridiculously underutilises the terminal. There may be solutions via it, but it's so useless and neutered on Windows in general, I don't think there's really much point in learning DOS.
So I'm not sure I agree with this. (I'm an apt user, but I assume the same thing applies to yum.) It also depends on the task you're doing. If your task is "install the package named llvm-3.0-dev", then I agree. If it's "I want to install program X but don't know the exact package name" then the GUI starts to gain on the command line. If it's "I want to install these 10 programs but don't know the exact package names", then the GUI wins. (In that case it's much the same reason that Git's index is often very handy. It allows you to easily queue up several operations one by one and then commit them at once. In the same way, some GUI to apt will let you check off each individual package as you find it, while doing the same thing on the command line means you have to search for package 1, write down the name, search for package 2, write down the name, etc., and then copy all those names to the actual apt-get install line.)
and the pitifully small list of commands for apt-get
apt-get is ridiculously unversatile; there's not ever a search command for crying out loud! (Which is what I would do with yum)
aptitude is slightly better, but the command list is still really small. Neither has history (and therefore no "undo last" or redo option as there is for yum), neither has a command for providing a brief description (info), one for listing dependencies (deplist), or list repos (repolist). I suppose Debian-based systems use GUI package managers a lot more because APT seriously just sucks, CLI-wise.
And yet, iPython's qt front end looks like it could be really cool. I haven't tried it, but I'd really like to.
Just Python via terminal is much quicker; I just press a button to drop down my terminal, open python, type a calculation, and close it. A GUI adds considerably to that. Even if I keep it open constantly, I'm either going to need to alt-tab through a few windows, have it on a different desktop, or actually touch my mouse for a moment and click on it to open it.
And something like gmplayer is even better.
Ewww. First of all, VB? They should call it VD. D: Why would anyone write free software in a proprietary language?
Second of all, unless there's a media player that can compare to the simplicity of mplayer -loop 0 ./Jethro\ Tull/*/*.ogg, that opens up and starts playing almost instantly, that takes up at most three or four seconds total to type and start playing (especially with the handy CLI integration of Dolphin; Konsole is far from my favourite terminal, but it works), I don't think any media player can quite compare.
I'd bet money that I could put together a Windows Embedded image that could run desktop applications (at least until you said print) and omitted the print spooler.
Sure, I'm picking nits a bit and that's a technicality -- but it probably is technically true. And then you're left arguing practicality, and a CUPS vulnerability is practically speaking a pretty big vulnerability. (Granted: not sure about the root/non-root aspect.)
Right, but it's not like you can take the print spooler off of a Windows NT system entirely; it's as part of the OS as Internet Explorer is. OTOH, CUPS is not the only printing system, and it's not in every variant of GNU/Linux, and wasn't even in very many until around 2002 or so.
Then a CUPS vulnerability is pretty damn damaging.
* This exploit only works under the (rare) conditions that cupsd executes
* external filters as a privileged user, a printer on the system uses the
* pstopdf filter (e.g. the pdf.ppd PDF converter). Also, /etc/ld.so.preload
* must be world readable.
Seems slightly convoluted, no?
Problem: not enough desktops. Solution: add more desktops.
I smile and shake my head at the poor fools who buy second monitors for their Windows workstations.
Max™ wrote:I can edit pdf files directly, and I don't need to upload a libreoffice file to an online pdf converter... you can just tell it to export to pdf. Very handy given how many files need to be turned in as pdfs.
Oh God, yes, pdf. Until I started using GNU/Linux, I didn't know there was free pdf-editing software. And last I checked, Word still didn't have a built-in pdf converter (and neither did the other Office programs).
I'm not really sure about these things, because they tend to have really widespread use cases from the same people. Which can easily get confusing. Sometimes I'm just writing a goddamn letter, sometimes I need to mock something up a little more complicated (without me resorting to use Adobe Illustrator). I'm happy with Word or Pages, but for some reason Libre/OpenOffice doesn't feel as comfortable.
I honestly want a word processor that's just CSS-based. And given CSS's paged media module
I might just do that.
What exactly is wrong with LO Writer? I use it minimally (plain text suits my needs 99% of the time), and when I did, it was very ergonomic. The maths was as functional as the one for Word, everything was easy to find and intuitive.
Then that's exactly why you're not in the use case that OS X is aimed at. The fact that some troubleshooting is CLI-based is why Apple offers their customer service. And I am a GUI person; my mental model maps much better to the physical location of widgets on a screen rather than mapping to bits of text that determine command arguments. I don't use the CLI enough to memorize commands, and I prefer to memorize bits of information about my work instead. Just because there are free GUIs doesn't mean they're superior.
As I said, different models for different purposes; I don't use lynx as a web browser, but using a GUI for gnuplot or Octave takes five to ten times as much work and time. But if someone wanted to get around a GNU/Linux system without touching the terminal, they could.
Flashback was an Apple issue, I'll give you that. It was a single incident, though. I'm guessing Apple was being really careful about it... or something.
Well, I figure there are only two possibilities: Either they were lazy (and thus irresponsible) or they made so many downstream changes that it took two months to make sure that applying Oracle's updates wouldn't break anything (and thus irresponsible).
So.... We may have a bug that causes a root escalation on Red Hat Enterprise, Debian, Ubuntu, Slackware, Gentoo, CentOS, SUSE, and all distributions based off of those. But its not a "Linux bug" because it doesn't affect freaking Android
? I presume that the libc root escalation issue
wasn't a Linux problem either, because Androids use the nonGPL uLibc instead and there are ports of libc to other systems?
It's not a Linux bug, because Linux is not an operating system; it's a kernel. GNU/Linux is an operating system. It's a case of terminology, here.
What about Windows 7 phones. They don't have a printer spooler so they're immune to Stuxnet. So is Stuxnet not a Windows bug either now?
The printer spooler is a Windows NT bug would be the correct thing to say. Incidentally, is it even possible to remove the printer spooler? If not, then it pretty much is a part of Windows, isn't it?
Its hard to blame you, because its really a flaw in the computer industry as a whole IMO. The following article highlights the thinking:
Headline: Apple Safari used to exploit zero-day security hole in Windows 7http://www.infoworld.com/t/security/app ... s-7-182269
That is right. The security hole is in Windows 7, not Safari.
But a CUPS exploit is in CUPS, not linux. amirite?
However, as noted by Kaspersky Labs' blog, it's possible that other browsers could be used to exploit the vulnerability.
Furthermore, if Safari caused the same security hole in another version of Windows as in Windows 7, it would be a Safari problem. And since CUPS caused the same hole in every Unix and Unix-like system, it was a CUPS problem.
I don't think the plans are comparable. You've brought up a dedicated hosting deal while I brought up a colocation deal. And there are too many differences to adequately compare the two.
Sure you get more bandwidth in your plan, but that is not the only factor. The MacMini is owned by you if you buy into the plan (ie: you need to pay $600 upfront cost), so you can personally customize the hardware and software and then ship it to those guys. I've never worked with MacMinis before, but I like the idea that I can take it apart, put whatever parts I want inside of it, and then have that specific machine hosted somewhere. (Although... it looks like I'm limited to a single RAM slot and HDD vs Solid State. I forgot that those things aren't so customizable...)
Ultimately, if I'm using the MacMini plan over two years, that is $600 upfront costs plus $35/month. Or approximately $25 + $35/month overall (and I get to sell the Mac Mini on Ebay afterwards to recoup some money).
So even then, you own the hardware but rent the space. In your link, they
own both the hardware and the space, and the cost is approximately $80/month for a better bandwidth deal.
Ex: With the MacMini deal... you can buy a MacMini, wipe the disk, install Linux and then hand the hardware over to those colocation guys. There are benefits to truly owning the hardware of the platform you're hosting. There are stories of people throwing up Xen / Debian on those buggers and owning your own VPS server
. (As in, you own the hypervisor and all of the DomUs)
Ah, oops, forgot to read. In that case, for some colocation: http://www.askwebhosting.com/colocation ... nsfer.htmlhttp://www.colopronto.com/compare/http://www.michigan-colocation.com/inde ... colocation