begin oe_protect.scr
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> __/ [ Jim ] on Thursday 17 August 2006 02:20 \__
>
>> Once upon a midnight dreary, while Hadron Quark pondered weak and weary
>> over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore...:
>>
>>> The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
>>>> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote
>>>> on Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:45:46 +0100
>>>> <4943247.2B4FPLPhgA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>> Is Linux ready for the workplace?
>>>>>
>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>> | I now state that I believe Linux is suitable for over 90% of the
>>>>> | enterprise desktop and I challenge you to give me any valid,
>>>>> | validated, reasoned and thoughtful proof to enable me to retract my
>>>>> | statement.
>>>>> `----
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> but usually I consider Linux better at communicating
>>>> what problem it's having, if one knows the lingo, and
>>>> Linux helps by not dumbing it down with "market speak"
>>>> or "feeping creatureism": disks and cabinets [*] for
>>>> partitions, folders for directories, documents for files,
>>>> shortcuts for what looks a little like a symbolic link
>>>> but isn't really.
>>>
>>> Do you really believe that? Its completely false IMO : Linux, being the
>>> techie geeks dream, has a far more complicated naming convention. Its
>>> why the mac/windows got adopted more : they simplified the front end and
>>> the learning curve for the majority of users. Even the concept of a
>>> ".exe" file extension is often more intuitive for many than the concept
>>> of an "execution bit".
>>
>> Yeah, far easier to sneak in a bit of malware thinly disguised as a jpeg...
>
> Linux is /more/ rational. What is a file extension anyway? And a suffix?!?!
> It's all a matter of habits, which had people take this for granted. A
> file-user relationship involves permissions: to read, to write, and to run.
> Don't let the filename control that relationship. Names are easy to change,
> as opposed to attributed. A bane won't preserve itself (e.g. network
> shares). Bad idea from the get-go. Bad design for a system that was designed
> for a one-user, standalone, Solitaire station.
>
There's nothing "intuitive" about a file extension. There's nothing
intuitive about permissions. There's nothing intuitive about computers
in general. The Mac has negligible market share, but a fairly complex
resource/file fork system; Windows has been "adopted more" for well
documented reasons, many of which involve illegal activities by MS, most
of which involve some kind of monopoly abuse, indeed, anti-trust actions
are still going on now with respect to Windows and Microsoft.
However, the use of file-extensions in windows to determine
executability is one of the main reasons why there are >> 100,000
viruses for windows, whereas there are virtually none for linux, and
none which actually work. The poor interface design of Windows is
evident everywhere, indeed, the fact that it changes to much in each
release is a clear clue that it's not very good - if it were, why would
it change?
The use of permissions is vital to keeping systems secure. Whilst there
is no "intuitive" advantage to file names to determine function, it
certainly makes virus propagation much easier in the Windows
environment.
Of course, linux is used in all manner of devices, including Motorola
phones, Nokia web tablets, TomTom satnav, GP2X gaming device, linksys
routers, dlink routers, alcatel SIP servers, google's clusters, as well
as being increasingly popular on the desktop. There's nothing
particularly difficult about using linux.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
TONY RANDALL! Is YOUR life a PATIO of FUN??
|
|
