I chose Freedom because that is the primary reason that I use Linux. But honestly both points are pretty awesome. But I feel like I can get more done with a Linux box because of the power that you have with the CLI and if something doesn't work the way you want it to you can change it.
Filesystem/image management.
I can mount almost any kind of disk image or filesystem ever made. It comes to the rescue when DOS fails.
Can nobody help me with my question? :sigh:
When I'm not playing games, I usually just web browse on my linux and mess around with all the cool freeware stuff. Also its faster than windows.
Free as in freedom.
I love using all of the cool little programs on it, and the ease of using it. But I do use Windows more because I game a lot.
Is it Warez to download Enterprise distros? I don't want to resort to piracy, but i want to try one out, I've never used one before.
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;21522527]draw a Vin Diagram buddy[/QUOTE]
[img]http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/3407/thegame.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Pixel Heart;21534983]Is it Warez to download Enterprise distros? I don't want to resort to piracy, but i want to try one out, I've never used one before.[/QUOTE]
Like I said earlier in the thread, CentOS is EXACTLY THE SAME AS RED HAT ENTERPRISE LINUX, and it's free.
Also, there is a public beta for RHEL 6.0.
[url]http://www.karan.org/blog/index.php/2010/04/22/rhel-6-beta-via-torrents[/url]
The above is a CentOS developer's personal blog.
[editline]10:18PM[/editline]
And if you're really determined you can download all the source code for Red Hat and build it yourself. This is what CentOS does.
[editline]10:20PM[/editline]
If you'd rather get the RHEL 6 iso from Red Hat's site:
[url]ftp://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/rhel/beta/6/[/url]
Just pick arch, and then go to the iso folder like so:
[url]ftp://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/rhel/beta/6/i386/iso/[/url]
For me it's in "All your application are work on our OS, you have no chance to compete, make your time".
Oh yeah, since everyone is starting to show of there Linux and what not, here's mine:
Back|Track 4 in dual boot with Windows Seven.
[URL]http://www.backtrack-linux.org/[/URL]
The only problem is the damn Wireless, apparenlty Broadcom is called "Broadcrap" for a reason.
I've had some degree of success with Broadcom wireless cards in Mandriva, you could check that out.
I find it hilarious that everyone loves running Linux on Broadcom processors (Wireless routers mainly), but when it comes to wireless cards, everyone avoids Broadcom like the plague. :raise:
Maybe if someone (or a small dev team) sat down and reverse-engineered Broadcom chips, they could create a universal open-source Broadcom driver for Linux. Not saying it would fix the problem entirely, but it would be a step in the right direction.
[QUOTE=Pixel Heart;21553967]
Maybe if someone (or a small dev team) sat down and reverse-engineered Broadcom chips, they could create a universal open-source Broadcom driver for Linux. Not saying it would fix the problem entirely, but it would be a step in the right direction.[/QUOTE]
Well the code reverse engineering could run into several copyright laws. I've thought about that, but then I realized, I don't know how to.
[IMG]http://www.pushingplay.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/facepalm.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;21564336]Well the code reverse engineering could run into several copyright laws. I've thought about that, but then I realized, I don't know how to.[/QUOTE]
people reverse-engineer things all the time to create drivers. It's normal. People do it for ipod linux, PS3 linux, all sorts of things.
Its open source meaning I can edit it to make it truly mine.
[QUOTE=Pixel Heart;21572661]people reverse-engineer things all the time to create drivers. It's normal. People do it for ipod linux, PS3 linux, all sorts of things.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Especially when you have some sort of proprietary hardware/software. That's when reverse engineering comes up!
I haven't yet seen any open-source things being reverse-engineer'd, because there wouldn't be any reason to do so. (Why would you want to reverse-engineer something that you can already take a 100% look at from the inside?)
When I hear "freedom," I think of source editing which I don't do, so I'm going to have to say "free beer."
I only use it on VirtualBox but I use it for both, I like that it's free but I use it for linux only things too, I don't want to use grub and install it on my actual PC unless I feel I have to.
[QUOTE=n0cturni;21592619]When I hear "freedom," I think of source editing which I don't do, so I'm going to have to say "free beer."[/QUOTE]
I'm willing to bet maybe one person in this thread has actually touched the source, too
that + nobody being able to answer my supposedly simple question is hilarious
I mostly use Linux on my netbook, and might soon begin using it for the two of my other machines. I mostly use Linux because it is extremely flexible, open source, and economical in requirements, some of the Linux distros can run on a rusty boat anchor, maybe on a boulder if you tried hard enough.
[QUOTE=mrcsb;21594709]I'm willing to bet maybe one person in this thread has actually touched the source, too
that + nobody being able to answer my supposedly simple question is hilarious[/QUOTE]
Running a custom Firefox build, feels good man
[editline]02:52AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=mrcsb;21479454]Can you explain Linux's secure design elements and Windows' design flaws to someone less in the know?[/QUOTE]
Code a virus for Windows. Good? Now do one for Linux (or any UNIX system, for that matter).
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;21600907]
Code a virus for Windows. Good? Now do one for Linux (or any UNIX system, for that matter).[/QUOTE]
code a virus for Windows where users aren't running as admin
[QUOTE=mrcsb;21622257]code a virus for Windows where users aren't running as admin[/QUOTE]
Crash and burn. The majority of windows vulnerabilities exist because people are admins by default.
[QUOTE=mrcsb;21622257]code a virus for Windows where users aren't running as admin[/QUOTE]
majority of windows systems have a regular account as admin by default.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;21636604]majority of windows systems have a regular account as admin by default.[/QUOTE]
explain how that relates to the supposed security holes and rampant exploits in windows, please
not to mention there's UAC in windows now, which is essentially equivalent to sudo
Ubuntu's UNR is great for reviving my secondary computer, the infamous eeePC900 which was a bitch to find drivers for till this latest release.
[QUOTE=mrcsb;21638487]explain how that relates to the supposed security holes and rampant exploits in windows, please
not to mention there's UAC in windows now, which is essentially equivalent to sudo[/QUOTE]
UAC isn't active (entirely) on administrator accounts, which the majority of windows based systems have active and in use by the owner of the system.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;21639494]UAC isn't active (entirely) on administrator accounts, which the majority of windows based systems have active and in use by the owner of the system.[/QUOTE]
explain how that relates to the supposed security holes and rampant exploits in windows, please
also UAC still requires confirmation for everything an admin should be able to do LOL
Because 90% of Windows systems have the owner of the machine using the administrator account, meaning malware can do pretty much anything it wants from there.
Not to mention the registry is the most exploitable piece of shit in operating system history.
[QUOTE=mrcsb;21655980]explain how that relates to the supposed security holes and rampant exploits in windows, please
also UAC still requires confirmation for everything an admin should be able to do LOL[/QUOTE]
most of these exploits exist because code that users are being infected with can run with root privileges and wreak havok. most security holes (like those in, say, flash) are bad because they allow someone to write malicious code to memory and have it executed with the privileges of the exploited programs. if flash is running as an admin... well lol.
UAC requires confirmation because programs in windows 7 for example are run as non-superusers, so when they want to touch stuff owned by a superuser (i.e. the registry or where settings are saved) they need to be authenticated.
because it gives me less of a headache.
and the fact that i can simple press a button for a drop down terminal, type 'update' ( aliased sudo pacman/yaourt/clyde -Syu ) and update every single package installed.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
