Slashdot Mirror
Sergey Brin: Windows Is "Torturing Users"
jbrodkin writes "Google created Chrome OS because Windows is 'torturing users,' Google co-founder Sergey Brin says. Only about 20% of Google employees use Windows, with the rest on Mac and Linux, and Brin hopes that by next year nearly all Googlers will be using Chromebooks. 'With Microsoft, and other operating system vendors, I think the complexity of managing your computer is really torturing users,' Brin told reporters at Google I/O. 'It's torturing everyone in this room. It's a flawed model fundamentally. Chromebooks are a new model that doesn't put the burden of managing the computer on yourself.' Google claims 75% of business users could be moved from Windows computers to Chrome laptops."
I love how "With Microsoft, and other operating system vendors, I think the complexity of managing your computer is really torturing users" becomes "With Microsoft, I think the complexity of managing your computer is really torturing users"
Really? This passes for a story, this is a blatant ad.
I feel no torture as I write this from my Windows box.
Company bringing out product says competition bad. News at 11.
Negative quote about "Microsoft and others" summarised on Slashdot as negative quote about Microsoft. News at 11.
Is anyone else as bored of this shit as me?
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
They use Linux (amongst others) because managing Windows is too complex. Seriously?
This time around, the big difference is, Google has a revenue stream, some independence from Windows and management has some proven track record. But they are not competing against Windows95 either. Every niche from phone size all the way to 35 inch cine screen, from sub Gig memory machines all the way up to 128 GB monsters, are fully populated and variety of processors and OSes and business models proliferate. May be Chromachines will cut through the clutter and succeed. Or not. Only time will tell.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
The things [exclusively] Windows users experience passes for "normal" most of the time and they never realize the abuses they deal with on a regular basis.
These things simply don't exist in other OSes. Things like shutting down taking almost as much time as starting up? What could be going on in the background in the shut-down process that could or should take so long?
But to be fair, it's not just Microsoft Windows that is the cause -- it's all those damned vendors who feel like they need to install a "quick load widget" with every program. And guess what happens when EVERYTHING installs one of those? Yup! (Damn you HP and all the rest! We don't want you quick-launchers and your damned ink/toner monitors!! We don't want your convenient drag and drop DVD burner tray applet!!)
This is what really tortures users. Any one of these things by themselves are not so bad. But any combination of them will cause torture.
If you read between the lines, this is a play to take away a user's ability to change the system rather than hiding that complexity to make the system easier to use. The difference is, in principle, about who ultimately controls the system. Google are going to roll out an Apple-like OS that locks the users in and make the same claim Apple makes about a better user experience to justify their choices.
Also, as a random aside, any company which moves their staff to Linux has lost a lot of legitimacy when they claim they have interests in bringing up the standard of usability or the user experience. Linux is far worse than Windows in terms of user experience (& complexity). I wouldn't even compare Linux to Windows 7, I would compare Windows 95 to Ubuntu 11, and honestly feel Windows 95 would win that battle.
Last point, I bet 70% non-Windows, means at least 60% on OS X, and approximately 10% on Linux.
Are there any good reasons why a business user would want to be using a laptop?
Because business users work in different locations on occasion?
Most users I know can not be trusted with managing their own system. Common users switch of UAC, clearing the path for virusses. Common users use outdated licenses of useless AV packages (so they will not get updates) clearing the path for virusses. Common users feel backups are a waste of time or forget about them. Common users install stuff to watch pr0n or puppies. Common users click links in mails from friends, even if it's clear the mail wasn't actually send by said friends. Common users don't know shit about how to use a computer responsibly.
For them a Chromebook could be a good solution.
I am not a common user (although I am not above doing stupid things). I want to be able to configure my system to MY preferences, not some default that makes me cringe in some corners of usage.
As with everything: there is no such thing as a single perfect solution.
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
I'd like to see a DBA, or anybody in IT for that matter, run Chrome OS nearly exclusively. That would be torture.
And I don't have to spend any undue amounts of time "managing" my computer. Maybe a new software package here and there, an occasional security update, driver update, etc. It's less effort than the real work I do, that's for sure.
I'm responding from an airport lounge after two weeks in a different country with no permanent office. I do this every three to four weeks. Any more questions?
If Google's 4000 Windows users are tortured by their computers, Google should hire some experienced Windows admins.
At my job, we use Active directory policies to keep users from having to admin their local workstation - in fact, we we restrict them from many admin tasks through AD policies.
How do you disable USB storage devices on thousands of Ubuntu (or Chrome) desktops because you don't want your sensitive documents walking out on portable storage devices? And then how do you easily enable it again just for your research department because they have a business need for external storage?
Note that I'm a hard-core linux geek, I run only Linux at home (and on my phone), but I realize that many of the applications my business users want to run don't run on Linux. Office is the biggest one - not everyone *needs* Office, but some people need it to run various macro packages (either self-developed or purchased)... and once we start giving Office to some departments (i.e. finance, busdev, etc), it's easier to give it to everyone for consistency. Plus any new employee we hire will already know how to use MS Office.
I get the feeling that some of us aren't clear on exactly what he meant by "managing" our computers. So here's my take. . .
* installing programs
* launching and closing programs
* figuring out where to store files
* finding files
And that's without even getting into stuff like antivirus or keeping backups, managing user accounts, etc. I suspect his real complaint is about things so basic that most of us don't even think about, because that's the way computers have always worked. It's the whole applications-and-files model that he's going after.
Hi all. Where's my Compiler & distributed revision control? (GCC, GIT), Why can't I rewind a Google Doc? Where's my local LAMP stack? Postgresql? SQLite? Code folding and syntax highlighting in Google docs? Not there? B-But, it's running on top of GNU/Linux. I know it's using some of this underneath, why can't I access it within ChromeOS? This hurts, it's the most limited OS I've ever seen short of on a dumb "smart phone".
No thanks, I've already got all of the benefits of Google's model of cloud storage... I'll keep using my traditional model of robust "cloud" storage: An editor with auto-save enabled, editing files in a local GIT repo, with a cron job doing git commit & git push every 5 minutes or so. Note: that remote repo -- it's part of my private cloud; I also have a cron job that creates a daily private bittorrent of my media collection -- my other PCs rsync the torrent & use BT to distributively sync the media folders I've selected them to store. Bonus, when I'm offline I still have access to all the important data, and some of whatever entertainment data I'm liking right now.
Start > Programs > Accessories > System Tools > Backup Status and Configuration.
Backup and restore, all in one simple Wizard driven UI.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
I've had Windows XP for almost ten years now, and I don't have to "manage" anything. Every year or so I wipe the drive with a fresh XP-CD install, and need to reinstall my favorite programs, but that would be true of any OS, whether it's Mac, Lubuntu, or Chrome.
Seriously? Do you really need to?
I've got a Windows 2000 install that's still going strong at 10 years old, and a couple of XP installs well over 5 years old. We even have a couple of Linux systems that have been running continuously longer than you keep Windows XP around - we only had to restart them during a UPS replacement. The Mac OSes only get upgrades (which counts as an install, I guess) when The Steve unveils a new version, so the system OS install I'm using right now is however old 10.6 is (about a year and a half). I have an install of OS X 10.5 on a PPC Mac at home that is still working just fine after 5 years.
So, this begs the question, what are you doing to screw up your XP installs in a year?
Even my boss, the resident malware catcher (seriously, I think he actively tries to get malware on his system) is using a three year old install of XP.
I think you'd be safe to extend your reinstall interval.
Putting moderation advice in your
Try 2008, dickhead. Because in 2008, Ubuntu definitely wouldn't recognize dual monitors without some pretty complex manual tweaking of the X.org config file.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
"Chromebooks are a new model that doesn't put the burden of managing the computer on yourself."
Really?
What about thin clients?
And before that, what about X terminals?
There is nothing new here. It is still a good idea to some extent: for applications that can always be connected when they need to be. But there is no new concept here. The only things that are new are that (1) the client has become immeasurably more complex and heavyweight (a browser versus a terminal), with very little additional value over what X terminals offered; and (2) there is now an Internet in place so that connecting to the server is easier when it is beyond the local LAN.
I think he meant to say "It's torturing me that more people aren't sending us all of their data."
Then why is it still a problem 17 years later? Windows 7 easily recognizes a second monitor, but Ubuntu 10.10 completely ignores it. What's worse is I don't even know where to start with fixing it.
...I'm pretty sure Linux ain't the cure.
90% of the world MUST be masochists.
But seriously, until someone offers a better, cheaper, and more useful OS than Windows, people will use Windows.
What do you mean you can't install and configure Linux? What do you mean you don't have $1200 to drop on an Apple macbook?
Ubuntu:
- Installer asks me about my time zone, user name and password. Everything else can be done on autopilot.
- Once booted, if there are restricted drivers, I got a popup telling me to install them if I want. Install is a two button click: (1) Install, (2) Reboot. All this 'massive' configuration is done.
Windows:
- Installer is pretty much similar to Ubuntu, minor inquiries.
- Once booted, a lot of hardware doesn't work and I have to install drivers for everything including silly things like CPU driver and various system bus drivers and sometimes even sound cards.
- My other option is, to insert the motherboard's driver CD and pray to Jeebus that it doesn't install a bunch of bloatware and crapware along my drivers. Oops, too late, even Asus are bundling garbage like Symantec Total Absolute Maximum Super Duper Security suite (30 day trial version) with their driver CDs. Oh, and there is no way to skip this installation if you chose the CD way because Asus wants you to secure your computer, honest!
- Once drivers are taken care of, I have to get some security software and install it. I have to stop a bunch of services that are not needed (I am looking at you Remote Registry and Telephony!).
But yes, keep telling yourself that installing and configuring Linux is such a complicated task.
But usually they require lessons first.
Complex machines require training - make it too easy for the untrained and/or idiots and it'll either lose functionality or become a PITA for people who do know what they're doing. I don't want a car with a max speed of 20mph that flashes a red light and does its horn if I get within 6 foot of a kerb , and nor do I want a computer that hand holds me all the time.
I'm a chip designer. While I've always been very good at software, I prefer hardware, and as I have moved more and more in that direction, I have come to feel that software stuff is mostly bullshit. Software is the stuff you write to give high level direction to the hardware. So why is everyone doing such a crap job of it? Ok, I've written GUI-based apps, plenty, and it's not easy to make a really intuitive interface. But I still can't see how CEOs of software companies like Microsoft can look at themselves in the mirror. They spend billions of dollars developing software that is absolutely horrid at automating the most basic of tasks. Computers are fantastic at fast, repetitive tasks. Making your PC connect to wireless reliably is one such task. So why can't they make it work right 100% of the time? I should never ever have to type in something that the computer can look up for itself. I should never have to do maintenance that's obvious. There are many unexpected things that happen as a result of bugs (these are unintentional) and hardware failure (shit happens). These are the times when someone has to look under the hood, because the result is largely unanticipated. This is reasonable. However, if there is something in a textbook that you can teach to someone, then it's KNOWN, and it should damn well be automated. If you can make a human procedure for it, you can make a software procedure for it. (And I'm talking about simple stuff, not computer vision or SPAM detection, although SPAM detection is automated and quite good. Irony?)
Not EVERY action can be anticipated, otherwise there would be no need for user interfaces at all. It's the things that have to be done the same way every time for everyone that should be automated. Interestingly, some software is trying to be smart and anticipate. Like automatic text substitution and spellchecking. Those don't always work right, but at least they're trying, and they're getting better at it. Similiarly, there's the way browser URL bars and search bars try to anticipate what you're trying to type and give you suggestions based on what others have done. Those are awesome (pun intended).
I actually use the command line a lot. For instance, I compile stuff using gcc. That's me doing development, not admining the machine. I also sometimes do stuff using bash that could be done using Finder (yes, I use a Mac, but I have Windows in a VM, and I have a Linux server at home). Again, that's me doing something I want to do with my files. But for the most part, you should just be able to turn your computer on, and have it get the hell out of the way of what you want to do. Want to type email? You select the Mail app, click the Compose button, and off you go. Aside from perhaps a few security measures (some of which are also lazy bullshit in the way they're designed), nothing should get in the way of that action.
Now, some of you out there like mucking about with the innards of their operating system. And that's cool for you. I know about this stuff do, and I do it better than most software engineers or CS grads. (Indeed, someone must know this, so that someone can write the OS and program the automated procedures.) But for MOST people, including those of us who have Ph.D.s in Computer Science, we have OTHER WORK TO DO. And this software bullshit (or bullshit software) is just SLOWING US DOWN.
I just love the 1980s nostalgia easter eggs that Microsoft has hidden in Windows 7. Like having to remember program names and type them in order to start them. It brings back such fond memories of DOS and pre-GUI Unix.
I know. It's almost as much trouble as having to remember words before I can use them. Why can't I just communicate with a series of points and clicks?
In reality, it's a lot easier to remember a word than a location. I may lose my pen a half dozen times a day. I've never forgotten what it is called.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Not only around the corner, it's already happening. And it's kind of funny to read those comments from slashdotters who "just couldn't believe it" after their girlfriends told they got infected.
Dude, Just because you fix her PC, It doesn't make her your girlfriend.
Contrast : for OSX, I get a popup every couple of weeks letting me know that updates are ready.
No kidding! If only Windows has some form of Automatic Updates system built in. Where it would you know, like automatically patch Windows, your drivers, and a number of third party tools. It would be great too, if they were to put a button some place so that you could adjust the schedule, or tell it to do an update immediately, or change it from a manual process to a completely silent process. And it would be totally smart to put that button someplace really easy to find. You know, like RIGHT AT THE TOP OF THE START MENU.
I run windows at home. I have auto updates turned on. I have the built in firewall enabled. I have Microsoft Security Essencials (free) installed.
And you know what? I haven't rebuilt my machine since I put it together.
My wife's machine is an older XP box, same deal, I haven't touched it except for when we had a hard drive die.
Media PC? Same deal, anchient XP box, I've not touched a thing on it. Even Flash is auto-updating now.
Here's the deal: Bad users will hose any PC. And sure, web OS's may be right for those individuals. Heck, it may even be right in a corporate environment with an infrastructure as rock solid as Google's. But for the vast majority of PC users, it would just be a gimmick used to seperate them from their money.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
For many years I've been thinking that Microsoft should pull an Apple and rewrite the operating system from the ground up, eliminating all the legacy crap. Include XP virtualization (like Win7 Pro does) for the first couple of versions to support old code, and then drop it entirely a couple of versions later. People would certainly complain loudly, but it would be for the better.
My sig says it all. For those who have sigs turned off: "I Cater to the Needs of Stupid People"
It is sad that people do not know what anti-virus program they are using yet do understand that they need anti-virus. Some of these saps will keep buying Norton and McAfee products and pay expensive auto-renewals or even install additional anti-virus and firewalls without removing or disabling the old ones. These people will click on anything that says something vaguely close to "security" or "anti-virus" in the name.
I favor the free (without paid version prompts) for these people since it easier to clean it up later when (not if) they get infected again because no product will stop the user from disabling or ignoring valid security alerts when they want to install the latest crapware that will be filled with adware, malware, or just a POS that crashes any application or OS it touches.
I Cater to the Needs of Stupid People. - from a coffee mug Christmas gift
As a Linux and Mac OS-X user, supporting a large group of RHEL users and XP users I definitely second this fellow.
If we leave aside the Ad Hominum attacks and AstroTurfing lets look at my experience with the three.
The RHEL systems are rock solid and enterprise manageable but have limited functionality that is very fine, stable, and secure for science, LAMP/Java serving, and custom applications. Very configurable and if you have top notch SA's the same can be done with CENTOS or other Linux so the lock in is not as bad as MS. Still some lock in exists because it costs a lot in house to replace and maintain the RH management pieces we need for compliance reasons. Good security with only our SA team having root and occasionally having to beat users for attempting go around our procedures. (Lightly) The security benefits from fair security in the latest distros, a small number of hardened configurations that we deploy, and of course from not being number one on the blackhat agenda.
Downside - We have tons of management and other users that MUST have Project, Visio, etc. Ek is dead right on need for legacy applications. Companies like VMWare may help virtualize our RHEL systems using unix underneath - but they want to run their management pieces on top of Windows. Even document and spreadsheets become problematic as docx types mean we have to upgrade any desktop unix to the latest Office substitutes and still only get 95% compatibility that gets complained about. So other then SA's unix or linux desktops just don't fly. Of course we also need trained unix SA's who generally don't fill in well on the Windows side and they aren't cheap. I will say they are worth it though and generally leverage their numbers to a much larger base of installed computers per SA.
MacOSX - Very usable, solid and configurable underneath. Cheaper to maintain for hardware and AV. We do our mail AV at the edge so the pass through argument doesn't much apply to adding separate AV costs.
Downside- generally not an option as management acceptance and higher initial cost are issues. Popular with admins ( and myself ) but not nearly as secure as we'd like given pawn2own results. ( Apple does seem to be improving there - realizing the yearly embarrassment kills a major Mac OS X selling point. ) However still a great deal better then the Windows desktops for security. Argue among yourselves about the reasons. ( Some will become obvious below )
Finally Windows. We have XP because we are large and the roll out of 7 is endlessly delayed. Various Windows servers as well for AD and other services. Very user friendly - because we have a helpdesk endless deploying tiered updates by night and blasting out images followed by quick restores from backup after problems. Beautiful support of MS's arcane formats and legacy products that are the lifeblood of an army of pointy haired types who keep the enterprise pumping.
MS support of this house o cards is excellent - they know it has to be. Like IBM back in the day - behind the product is an army of FE's and a mountain of documentation that is constantly changing.
Downside: Even our MSCE's don't really understand under the hood. Don't get me wrong they can tune, deploy, and configure but underneath they need canned rules and configurations and host of third party security products. This isn't a put down, frankly they are constantly in school and are heroic keeping the systems running. Also part of this is the management above not committing resources to get 7 out here. Where we have beta'd it, it's a definite improvement. Our XP desktops though are constantly suffering issues when the latest 0-day sweeps through. Part of that is the 'anything runs' on Windows. Yes indeed - Adobe pdf zero days, Flash zero days, backup software zero days, IE zero days, and god know what other new exploits that we constantly rush the AV fixes out for. This is on top of a 'secure' baseline that is always annoying to users - who we don't allow admin to. We enc
You've got a better chance of walking to Japan from California than you do of shoe-horning Microsoft out of 80% of their marketshare in our lifetime. Won't happen. Their entire business is built on lock-in... Nobody can just "transition out"--they've built every product for maximum lock-in and maximum cash-flow, and are building new products that you have to pay for in perpetuity.
This may yet be their undoing... Open Office has been "ready for prime time" for a few years and yet we rarely encounter anybody using it or willing to use it. I propose it all the time, but include pricing for MS Office in all proposals that include Open Office because it's the first thing clients want to know--EVEN IF THEY SIGN OFF ON OPEN OFFICE--is "Where's my Microsoft Office? My Outlook?"
Until you break that mental block, it's a pointless exercise.
Who did what now?
Link1
Link2
Link3
Do you even read tech/science news?
Put a billion dollars on a Macbook and people will fuck it up beyond recognition. At the moment, the popular virus toolkits and script kiddies all focus on MS, but that is slowly changing.
**I spent 10 seconds googling 'mac vulnerabilities'. I probably could have found some better links, but I don't want to waste any more time on someone so misinformed.