Pages: « 1 2 3 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Greetings from LInux  (Read 6379 times)
Offline (Male) RetroX
Reply #15 Posted on: September 09, 2009, 04:29:03 PM

Master of all things Linux
Contributor
Location: US
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1055
MSN Messenger - classixretrox@gmail.com
View Profile Email
It's probably Microsoft saying NOPE NOPE NOPE, APPLE IS BAD TO EMULATE.
Logged
My Box: Phenom II 3.4GHz X4 | ASUS ATI RadeonHD 5770, 1GB GDDR5 RAM | 1x4GB DDR3 SRAM | Arch Linux, x86_64 (Cube) / Windows 7 x64 (Blob)
Quote from: Fede-lasse
Why do all the pro-Microsoft people have troll avatars? :(
Offline (Unknown gender) Game_boy
Reply #16 Posted on: September 09, 2009, 04:53:21 PM
Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 228

View Profile
It's probably Microsoft saying NOPE NOPE NOPE, APPLE IS BAD TO EMULATE.

Doesn't account for open ones like Virtualbox not working. The demand is there, surely some interested developer could patch it in?
Logged
Offline (Male) RetroX
Reply #17 Posted on: September 09, 2009, 05:51:41 PM

Master of all things Linux
Contributor
Location: US
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1055
MSN Messenger - classixretrox@gmail.com
View Profile Email
It's probably Microsoft saying NOPE NOPE NOPE, APPLE IS BAD TO EMULATE.

Doesn't account for open ones like Virtualbox not working. The demand is there, surely some interested developer could patch it in?
No, I mean, Windows doing something and not the program.

Unless it works in *nix, which I have not tried.
Logged
My Box: Phenom II 3.4GHz X4 | ASUS ATI RadeonHD 5770, 1GB GDDR5 RAM | 1x4GB DDR3 SRAM | Arch Linux, x86_64 (Cube) / Windows 7 x64 (Blob)
Quote from: Fede-lasse
Why do all the pro-Microsoft people have troll avatars? :(
Offline (Unknown gender) score_under
Reply #18 Posted on: September 10, 2009, 12:39:55 PM

Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 308

View Profile
It's probably Microsoft saying NOPE NOPE NOPE, APPLE IS BAD TO EMULATE.
It's probably Apple saying NOPE NOPE NOPE, I JUST DETECTED EMULATION HARDWARE AND I WANT YOU TO BUY OUR DAMN COMPUTERS.

After all, Apple is much worse at this DRM thing than Microsoft, and it really wouldn't surprise me if they had implemented VM detection.

Also... Microsoft aren't all that bad. Sure, they make their OS for computer-illiterates and make a few huge mistakes, but Apple are worse. Apple are the ones that stop you from using your legally-bought songs on a new computer, and don't allow you to play them on anything but the computer it was bought on or an iPod. This is why iTunes should die.

Also, unimaginative naming much? iTunes, iPod, iPhone... if you removed the i, it becomes nothing. "I'm just going to download a song from Tunes and put it on this awesome thing called a Phone". ...no.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 12:42:45 PM by score_under » Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) Micah
Reply #19 Posted on: September 10, 2009, 05:49:25 PM

Resident Troll
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 129

View Profile
Apple is much more proprietary than Microsoft, and there are way too many delusions about how Macs are more secure and stable, and their non-computer products are very overrated. So is iTunes.

And they charge a humongous amount for their computers. They probably spend a lot of that on marketing.

I wouldn't mind having a MacBook though. Mac is pretty awesome.

Also, RetroX, Windows stopping several different VM's from running Mac is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. It's probably you saying NOPE NOPE NOPE, ZOMG MICROSOFT IS PROPRIETARY.
Logged
Offline (Female) IsmAvatar
Reply #20 Posted on: September 10, 2009, 07:37:15 PM

LateralGM Developer
LGM Developer
Location: Pennsylvania/USA
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 886

View Profile Email
I have a friend who bought a MacBook and then reformatted it and installed Ubuntu. Can't blame them.
Logged
Offline (Male) RetroX
Reply #21 Posted on: September 10, 2009, 07:55:17 PM

Master of all things Linux
Contributor
Location: US
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1055
MSN Messenger - classixretrox@gmail.com
View Profile Email
Also... Microsoft aren't all that bad
I was going to make a new topic on this, but since it's relevant:
http://www.overclock.net/windows/569458-microsoft-attack-linux-retail-level-probably.html
Logged
My Box: Phenom II 3.4GHz X4 | ASUS ATI RadeonHD 5770, 1GB GDDR5 RAM | 1x4GB DDR3 SRAM | Arch Linux, x86_64 (Cube) / Windows 7 x64 (Blob)
Quote from: Fede-lasse
Why do all the pro-Microsoft people have troll avatars? :(
Offline (Unknown gender) score_under
Reply #22 Posted on: September 11, 2009, 12:12:54 PM

Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 308

View Profile
Also... Microsoft aren't all that bad
I was going to make a new topic on this, but since it's relevant:
http://www.overclock.net/windows/569458-microsoft-attack-linux-retail-level-probably.html
That does make my blood boil a little, but you do have to remember that most of it is true for the complete tech-illiterate, which Microsoft OSs are targeted at.
The comment about fixing bugs was a pure lie, though. Microsoft is over 9000 times worse at that. Windows XP still has a well known privilege escalation bug that has been present since the initial release. Most distros of linux have software updates more than once per week.
Logged
Offline (Male) Josh @ Dreamland
Reply #23 Posted on: September 12, 2009, 04:56:06 PM

Prince of all Goldfish
Developer
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2949

View Profile Email
Ubuntu has one hourly <_<"
Unlike Windows, though, Ubuntu's don't require restart, save three times.
Logged
"That is the single most cryptic piece of code I have ever seen." -Master PobbleWobble
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Evelyn Beatrice Hall, Friends of Voltaire
Offline (Male) RetroX
Reply #24 Posted on: September 12, 2009, 08:00:40 PM

Master of all things Linux
Contributor
Location: US
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1055
MSN Messenger - classixretrox@gmail.com
View Profile Email
That's because Windows won't let you modify system files while Windows is running, whereas Linux doesn't care.  Of course, some things are stored in RAM at startup and require a restart to be re-loaded.

Ubuntu has thousands of updates monthly, whereas Microsoft waits before they find tons of bugs and release an update compilation, to make it look like Windows doesn't have many bugs when it has as many as Ubuntu might.

O'course, they could have easily made it exaggerated and much more accurate with reasons Linux hardcoreists wouldn't be able to argue.

Windows is more physically secure.  Windows 7 Ultimate has BitLocker, the first actual way to protect your hard drive and be secure since normally you could just insert a live CD of Ubuntu or something and view the hard drive.  Linux is more virtually secure, meaning you can't get viruses and stuff.

They could have just made screenshots showing off Aero and then a screen-capture of a slackware terminal or something saying "THIS IS WINDOWS" "THIS IS LINUX".  There are tons of ways they could have made it look better, but I lol at this.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2009, 08:03:39 PM by RetroX » Logged
My Box: Phenom II 3.4GHz X4 | ASUS ATI RadeonHD 5770, 1GB GDDR5 RAM | 1x4GB DDR3 SRAM | Arch Linux, x86_64 (Cube) / Windows 7 x64 (Blob)
Quote from: Fede-lasse
Why do all the pro-Microsoft people have troll avatars? :(
Offline (Male) notachair
Reply #25 Posted on: September 12, 2009, 08:44:53 PM

Definitely not a chair
Contributor
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 299

View Profile
I was going to make a new topic on this, but since it's relevant:
http://www.overclock.net/windows/569458-microsoft-attack-linux-retail-level-probably.html
That does make my blood boil a little, but you do have to remember that most of it is true for the complete tech-illiterate, which Microsoft OSs are targeted at.
The comment about fixing bugs was a pure lie, though. Microsoft is over 9000 times worse at that. Windows XP still has a well known privilege escalation bug that has been present since the initial release. Most distros of linux have software updates more than once per week.
This, this, this, this.
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) Game_boy
Reply #26 Posted on: September 13, 2009, 05:27:34 AM
Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 228

View Profile
Windows is more physically secure.  Windows 7 Ultimate has BitLocker, the first actual way to protect your hard drive and be secure since normally you could just insert a live CD of Ubuntu or something and view the hard drive.  Linux is more virtually secure, meaning you can't get viruses and stuff.

There are a number of free disk encryption tools for Linux. There are no tools that will make Windows as 'virtually' secure as Linux though, at least not without crippling the OS's functionality.

And if you buy Ultimate just for Bitlocker then Bitlocker is costing you $120.
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) score_under
Reply #27 Posted on: September 13, 2009, 09:24:33 AM

Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 308

View Profile
There are a number of free disk encryption tools for Linux.
The one I use (cross-platform, can use virtual disks, whole disks, partitions, and can encrypt the MBR) is TrueCrypt.
http://www.truecrypt.org/

I wonder if BitLocker has as many features as TrueCrypt... (Note: I don't have Win7, I can't see for myself)
Logged
Offline (Male) antidote
Reply #28 Posted on: September 13, 2009, 07:53:06 PM
Member
Location: Job Corps. <.<
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 27

View Profile Email
it... doesn't. Truecrypt has several different algorithms to choose from while BitLocker has one that has already been cracked.
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) HUMPHREY
Reply #29 Posted on: September 21, 2009, 05:11:47 PM
Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 4

View Profile Email
OS X doesn't use a BIOS it uses a faggotbooter or something like that.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 »
  Print