David Lindon
Golden Master
- Messages
- 15,233
They have to used windows cos it is what the world runs! that is why they write virus for windows machines!
What is a hacker...I'll explain
- Thread starter SilentWolf
- Start date
Re: Hackers and Crackers!
Exactly, I blame Linux-Folk for most of the problems of Microsoft because they create a great deal of the problems. The problems, however, are based in WIndows benig so World Wide.
If Linux were in Windows' shoes then they'd have at least twice the bugs and problems due to their open-source!
I'm sure loads of them use Windows, but i'd imagine that either they use it to release the bug, or use it only to use the programs which won't work anywhere else! And deep down, Hackers and Crackers are each based in Linux!
Rocker said:Oh please.
You telllin me that not one hacker/cracker in this world uses Windows to do it? Stop blaming "Linux folk" for all Microsofts troubles.
David Lindon said:
Exactly, I blame Linux-Folk for most of the problems of Microsoft because they create a great deal of the problems. The problems, however, are based in WIndows benig so World Wide.
If Linux were in Windows' shoes then they'd have at least twice the bugs and problems due to their open-source!
I'm sure loads of them use Windows, but i'd imagine that either they use it to release the bug, or use it only to use the programs which won't work anywhere else! And deep down, Hackers and Crackers are each based in Linux!
David Lindon
Golden Master
- Messages
- 15,233
Yes because they have a great deal of knowledge about computers and preffer to use Linux!
Lord Kalthorn
Guru
- Messages
- 13,293
- Location
- Britain
I think I shall have to admit that Linux is a programmers dream; the capability practically with enough time to write one's own OS is unbearably tempting to anybody with half a Programming Brain - even I cannot resist seeing what can be done on it. I'm even putting a great deal of effort into downloading it and trying it out on an old machine: seeing what I can learn from it!
But, for the general user, the greatest percentage of Computer users not in time but in people Windows is the best and always will be unless Liniux gets rid of all of its guiding principles: open-source, free, cheap GUI and complex hardware driving
But, for the general user, the greatest percentage of Computer users not in time but in people Windows is the best and always will be unless Liniux gets rid of all of its guiding principles: open-source, free, cheap GUI and complex hardware driving
I think you hit the nail on the head there David. Hacker & Cracker are certainly 2 different things altogether. In fact hackers are often used as a real way to test server and system vulnerability for companies.
It is only crackers that go out of there way to gain access and defeat or destroy systems for personal gain or malicious fun.
It is only crackers that go out of there way to gain access and defeat or destroy systems for personal gain or malicious fun.
Re: Hackers and Crackers!
In an attempt not to be controversial...
I find it hard to believe that Linux is responsible for any fault in Windows, Linuxs existance has no bearing on the quality of Windows.
Apart from making a broad generalization about the Linux community, there's the fact that Hackers/Crackers existed before Linux, Late ARPA-net, before it became DARPA-net which in turn evolved into and became 'The Internet'
'The Net' has always been a resource for crackers, Win X, Linux and other OSs are just tools for the harvesting of information. Therefore crackers/hackers cannot be categorized as 'Linux-folk'.
Keeping in mind that Linux's existance is in debt to those 'guiding principles', those concepts are what distiguishes the Linux cause from the Microsoft buisiness plan.
There's also seldom application interoperatable capacity between the Win X platform and any distribution of Linux. The logical attack platform to use (for a 'Crackers intensize purposes') would be the platform they are attacking). Meaning that a 'cracker' with half a brain, attacking a Win X platform would use a Win X platform, you can't write Win code in Linux.
Anyway, it's a likely-hood that built-in obsolesence will become a mayjor factor of the consumer software market, bugs will become a self-concious constuct of any program, they will be the means of creating 'a better program' that can then be marketed.
The worst thing that could happen to the software industry is if someone created the perfect program.
RC
In an attempt not to be controversial...
Kalthorn said:
I find it hard to believe that Linux is responsible for any fault in Windows, Linuxs existance has no bearing on the quality of Windows.
Kalthorn said:
Apart from making a broad generalization about the Linux community, there's the fact that Hackers/Crackers existed before Linux, Late ARPA-net, before it became DARPA-net which in turn evolved into and became 'The Internet'
'The Net' has always been a resource for crackers, Win X, Linux and other OSs are just tools for the harvesting of information. Therefore crackers/hackers cannot be categorized as 'Linux-folk'.
Kalthorn said:
Keeping in mind that Linux's existance is in debt to those 'guiding principles', those concepts are what distiguishes the Linux cause from the Microsoft buisiness plan.
There's also seldom application interoperatable capacity between the Win X platform and any distribution of Linux. The logical attack platform to use (for a 'Crackers intensize purposes') would be the platform they are attacking). Meaning that a 'cracker' with half a brain, attacking a Win X platform would use a Win X platform, you can't write Win code in Linux.
Anyway, it's a likely-hood that built-in obsolesence will become a mayjor factor of the consumer software market, bugs will become a self-concious constuct of any program, they will be the means of creating 'a better program' that can then be marketed.
The worst thing that could happen to the software industry is if someone created the perfect program.
RC
I like this chap!
Firsty, I believe throughout that Linux-Folk are in great deal responsible for the problems - as we all have to admit that many Linx-Folk work on and program Windows. I like to blame these 'Double Agents' for the finding and using, and indeed creating the problems through either a predetermined plan or simple stupidity
Secondly, may I was a little rash there, Hackers and Crackers are not a Hybrid of Linux-Folk: Hackers and Crackers are each responsible for the birth of Linux-Folk - some kind of disgusting Love Child?
Thirdly, Perhaps it is those guiding principles which keep Linux barely alive; but it is also them which keep Linux barely dead! I stand by the view that Open-Source is not a Home-User OS, due to the lack of programming safety.
I beg to differ, perfect programs always exist - but the Humanity in us drives us to create a better one; making the previous inperfect. Something that is programming genius can always be worked around and turned into a haven for Linux-Folk Viruses. I personally will not settle until there a no Linux-Folk working at Microsoft!
Firsty, I believe throughout that Linux-Folk are in great deal responsible for the problems - as we all have to admit that many Linx-Folk work on and program Windows. I like to blame these 'Double Agents' for the finding and using, and indeed creating the problems through either a predetermined plan or simple stupidity
Secondly, may I was a little rash there, Hackers and Crackers are not a Hybrid of Linux-Folk: Hackers and Crackers are each responsible for the birth of Linux-Folk - some kind of disgusting Love Child?
Thirdly, Perhaps it is those guiding principles which keep Linux barely alive; but it is also them which keep Linux barely dead! I stand by the view that Open-Source is not a Home-User OS, due to the lack of programming safety.
I beg to differ, perfect programs always exist - but the Humanity in us drives us to create a better one; making the previous inperfect. Something that is programming genius can always be worked around and turned into a haven for Linux-Folk Viruses. I personally will not settle until there a no Linux-Folk working at Microsoft!
David Lindon
Golden Master
- Messages
- 15,233
I beg to differ, perfect programs do not exist. There will always be a bug somewhere or some one will come up with a better waying of coding it etc.
Lord Kalthorn
Guru
- Messages
- 13,293
- Location
- Britain
Perhaps, but at the time that program is perfect
Interesting,
Well I finaly reconnected to the internet, so I can reply. Were on the list was this thread again?
Ok, the Perfect program? No? But the conceptial thinking of the hypothetical 'perfect program' should be attributed some thought.
Consider the stability (for the last 20 years) of Moore's Law; the amount of computing power provided by a particular processor will double every 18 months.
Allongside consider the simplistic truth of Myrhvold's Law stating that; software expands to fill the avaliable space. (wait, I think that I have mentioned those already, anyway)
One comes to the conclusion that as hardware slows to negligible advancements, (and eventually halts at the completion of the single electron processor, reaching the physical boundaries defined by our current physical laws) people will become increasingly more unable to differentiate between the (hopefully by that stage standarized) hypothetical 'perfect program' and the killer app.
Today's programs will undergo a transformation (structured by the evolution of hardware and the future criteria of software) that will lead to the completion of a completly customizable, singularaly independant, fully interoperatable and standarized software platform that will replace the need for dedicated software.
Therefore; there will no-longer be the need for multiple software/hardware manufactuers, as they would crowd the market and lead to interoperatabilty and finacial issues (problems) as opposed to the benefits of a single unified manufactuer. Leaving the market entirely defined by a single entity that governs the standards of all machines. (Big Brother and 1984?)
Delaying or somehow circumventing the on-going creation of the killer app and eventually; the creation of the hypothetical 'perfect program' would be justified by profit, money.
The perfect program may not exist anymore then the end of numbers, therefore the hypothetical 'perfect program' would be the perpetual killer app defined by the laws of physics.
Sufficed to say, and simply put; software companies avoid making killer-apps; it evidently closes the consumer market (as temoporary as it may be) for sales. In the software developer's eyes, consumers need more reason to buy programs, if they stop buying, they no longer are 'consumers'.
I'd be interested to hear feedback.
RC
Well I finaly reconnected to the internet, so I can reply. Were on the list was this thread again?
Ok, the Perfect program? No? But the conceptial thinking of the hypothetical 'perfect program' should be attributed some thought.
Consider the stability (for the last 20 years) of Moore's Law; the amount of computing power provided by a particular processor will double every 18 months.
Allongside consider the simplistic truth of Myrhvold's Law stating that; software expands to fill the avaliable space. (wait, I think that I have mentioned those already, anyway)
One comes to the conclusion that as hardware slows to negligible advancements, (and eventually halts at the completion of the single electron processor, reaching the physical boundaries defined by our current physical laws) people will become increasingly more unable to differentiate between the (hopefully by that stage standarized) hypothetical 'perfect program' and the killer app.
Today's programs will undergo a transformation (structured by the evolution of hardware and the future criteria of software) that will lead to the completion of a completly customizable, singularaly independant, fully interoperatable and standarized software platform that will replace the need for dedicated software.
Therefore; there will no-longer be the need for multiple software/hardware manufactuers, as they would crowd the market and lead to interoperatabilty and finacial issues (problems) as opposed to the benefits of a single unified manufactuer. Leaving the market entirely defined by a single entity that governs the standards of all machines. (Big Brother and 1984?)
Lord Kalthorn said:
Delaying or somehow circumventing the on-going creation of the killer app and eventually; the creation of the hypothetical 'perfect program' would be justified by profit, money.
The perfect program may not exist anymore then the end of numbers, therefore the hypothetical 'perfect program' would be the perpetual killer app defined by the laws of physics.
Sufficed to say, and simply put; software companies avoid making killer-apps; it evidently closes the consumer market (as temoporary as it may be) for sales. In the software developer's eyes, consumers need more reason to buy programs, if they stop buying, they no longer are 'consumers'.
I'd be interested to hear feedback.
RC
