On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 23:00 +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Bart Silverstrim writes: > > > From the way you were complaining, I had the impression that MS was > > bending backwards to help in issues while the FreeBSD people were > > immature children. > > They do a much better job than the FreeBSD project does, no doubt about > that.
then stop complaining to a list of 'kiddies', and use that. > > > Is this evidence to the contrary, that MS isn't the > > pinnacle of perfection in dealing with every software issue? > > No, it's evidence that you never talk to developers when you call the > support line. > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLOSS > > Thanks. Just today I was hoping for some new acronyms, it's been hours > since I last encountered one. If you have never encountered the term FLOSS, you are not the open source user you claim to be, it is a common term. > > > Especially in projects driven by money and politics in a workplace, and > > with looming deadlines. > > Yes, but also in projects with no profit motive at all. Many developers > love to write code, but hate to design and test. So they bloat what > they write just for their own enjoyment. > > > You can do the job to get it shoved out the door or do the job right. > > Doing it right often means doing it at a loss. And what open source developer does anything but 'doing it at a loss'?. > > > B) The "More popular thus more exploited" is a crap argument. > > The statistics seem to support it. Statistics will prove whatever you want it to prove, most people with intelligence look beyond the given conclusion, and make their own. > > > Windows was "designed" for single user non-network desktops. > > Not Windows NT and its successors. They were designed as network-aware > multiuser desktops. They originally had a strong server emphasis, > although that has gradually shifted back towards the more profitable > desktop, to the detriment of server environments. > > > That "30 year old UNIX" was better designed for network sharing and > > multiple users in scant resources. > > Yes. Unfortunately it's a poor desktop. Depends on what you want as a desktop - desktop != WIMP. > > > If apologists would get their heads out of their butts they'd see that > > it isn't always "There's more Windows, thus easier to exploit!", it's > > "Windows' design is inherently less secure, so it's easier to target!", > > as well as a healthy dose of "the average Windows user is more clueless > > than the average Linux user!" thrown in to boot. > > It's a bit of all of these, but mostly the number of installed seats and > the fact that it's a desktop used by unsophisticated users. > > > Many of the features in the recent "The Road to Windows "Longhorn" > > 2005" article on Paul Thurrott's Supersite for Windows seems oddly to > > match many of the features already available on OS X... > > Many features of OS X seem oddly to match many of the features > already available on Windows. Alternatively, many of the features of windows seem to match those of already available software. > > > Hmm, wonder why...could it be because of the security imposed by > > "UNIX" under OS X that makes that kind of model a decent tradeoff of > > usability and security in the first place? > > I have to smile when I hear UNIX held up as an example of a secure > system. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, I suppose. > > Current Windows systems have a much stronger security model than UNIX; > it just isn't used, because users wouldn't be happy if they had to deal > with it. So what defines a secure system, if not the fact it is less prone breakens? > > > If it wasn't such a pain in the butt for Joe Sixpack to use, ideas in > > EROS would help a helluva lot more on the desktop for security. > > Security is an inconvenience. Users want mindless interactions. > > Somewhere it meets in the middle in order to be usable. > > Yes. But this isn't a problem with the OS. > _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
