I posted a similar experience on this issue on the blog; I was a tech support representative for an ISP and I received numerous calls from customers who received empty emails from the ISP in their hotmail or msn mail accounts that should have been billing invoices; the invoices had a graphic element to them, but the message wasn't sent in the form of an attachment, just HTML (and the only real graphic elements were background color and the company logo, which I've never seen sent a pure attachments), and I cannot recall ever hearing about this problem from customers using another email provider. As I pointed out on the blog, this isn't quite the same thing, but I do feel my experience, indirect as it may have been, supports the point the article was trying to make. Just some food for thought.
The only way for a person to improve is to receive constructive criticism and to listen when others point out their failings. I personally listen when others point out my mistakes, and do my best to correct them, so I likewise believe that concealing information for the sole purpose of one's own advantage, without consideration for anyone who might be hurt because of one's actions, is immoral. Furthermore, I don't understand how you can consider the creation of malware a complex issue; in the long run, no matter how well intentioned the creator is, malware inevitably harms the population as a whole, and all in all, that sounds pretty simple to me.
From my point of view, the original argument never said anything about making vulnerability reporting compulsory, but that concealing a vulnerability is morally reprehensible, and claiming to keep a vulnerability secret until an exploit is finished is a disgusting excuse.
I agree with you completely. Almost any single version of Windows costs more than other OS. The newest version of Mac OS X has consistently been about $130, and is an equivalent to the business versions of Windows, which typically cost $300+, via a pricing scale that is not even remotely consistent. Furthermore, I have never found the price tag on Microsoft Office, which is nearly twice that of the most expensive equivalent, reasonable; I've used WordPerfect Office until recently, and have only stopped because I can't get version 9 working on Linux, and I have never had a tenth of the problems with WordPerfect as I've had using Word {terrified shutter} at school.
No, MS don't always get it right, but on backwards (and forwards) file format compatibility they are about as good as it gets.
Hardly.
WordPerfect hasn't made a significant change in document format since version 6; I can open any document I create in version 9 in version 6 and the appearance changes only minimally (6 didn't have a spell as you go feature and a few other things 9 has). Besides, the Word document format is, from a composition point of view, unacceptably complex, causing severe issues in document capability (try creating a single line of text that has text with left, center, and right justification, which can be done in WordPerfect with three simple keystrokes, and has been possible since at least version 4.2, but requires futzing around with the ruler bar in Word).
WordPerfect since at least version 9 is designed with true WYSIWYG (so Print Preview shows you the document without any of the formatting icons, but still allows you to edit; do that in Word), has a nice feature called the Property Bar that updates for the function you're presently using, instant preview (which allows you to see how the changes you're making will affect the document before you set anything in stone, allows you to adjust margins on the fly (no dialogs), won't allow you to set margins that can't be printed, and many, many other features Word can't even begin to compare with. Even in adding all of these things, of which, I'll admit, many are functional, not specifically document related, there have not needed to be a major change in document format so new documents can still be opened in older versions.
So, Excel is the greatest software on earth because it has a lot of keyboard shortcuts and pros can memorize them? I must have forgotten that all other spreadsheet programs cannot be used efficiently with a keyboard and are designed to suck in the most unintuitive way, for example, menus options being at a place where you would expect them.
I agree with you here completely. I've tried using Excel a few times, even once created a complete business related database (because I didn't have a database program available to me), and I detested the experience. On the other hand, I've used Quattro Pro for years, and I find the application much easier and efficient to use; because of the nature of my database, I frequently had to move the cursor across multiple horizontal screens, and I never found an efficient way to do that without the use of a mouse in Excel (as Control and the arrow keys do what End followed by an arrow key does in Quattro Pro and did in every spreadsheet in use before Excel). I'll admit that my biggest complaint here deals with navigation, but this is one of the major reasons I refuse to use Open Office for spreadsheets; Quattro Pro documents are so much easier to move around in (Control+left and Control+right move you left or right one complete screen in QuattroPro, making it easy to navigate horizontally.
That said, I'd like to point out a few other things that have always bothered me about Excel. When I want to change the size of a column or row in Quattro Pro, I simply move the cursor to any cell in the column or row I wish to change, or select a series of cells to change multiple column widths or row heights, and press F12, which brings up the cell properties dialog, then select the Columns/Rows tab, which gives me a variety of options for changing the width and height of my columns or rows, including what measurement unit I wish to use. In Excel, I can only open a single, severely limited dialog for either just column widths or row heights, but not both simultaneously, and the options are severely limited (just a number, if I recall correctly; I've avoided Excel for many years). Another major complain is that Excel only performs calculations on data when it's not being used to do anything else; on the machine I used for my database, this would cause delays in processing information and even, at times, force me to recalculate and resort the entire database manually (this was a huge file, at least 16MB, if not bigger), whereas Quattro Pro performs spreadsheet calculations while you work, so if the system is already working on a heavily complex series of calculations, you're still able to work without any interruption, which for the Quattro Pro version of that same database (which was smaller than the Excel version), simplified the process; I would still perform a manual recalculation at the end of the day, but that was only to satisfy my insane paranoia.
Why, after all these years Linux has existed, do we have to seek help from Microsoft with its fonts in order to have a desktop that is a pleasure to look at?
Basically because the people who are responsible for the current 'popular' font libraries are determined to emulate Windows. We don't need to do things this way, but they've made it very difficult to do things any other way.
I agree completely. Personally, I've found every version of Windows to be graphically unpleasant, with or without their "smooth" fonts, which have never looked pleasantly smooth at any resolution/size, and as both Gnome and KDE have adapted to elements of the Windows interface, they, too, share the same look and feel. Personally, when it comes to quality graphic interface and usability, I find that the Mac OS is much better; if someone developed a Linux desktop with a decent Mac OS feel to it, I would eagerly promote it.
In terms of interface, I've always found the Mac OS, including all of the pre-OS X versions, to be pleasant and soothing, and the Mac interface to be easier to work with; I have frequently been frustrated with what Windows, Gnome, or KDE won't do, or fight with me about that the Mac does without batting an eye. In terms of stability, however, I have to say that Ubuntu's been the best for me; I may have applications crash on occasion, but I've never once seen the system crash.
This doesn't just apply to the Zune. Fortunately, Microsoft doesn't yet have a deep enough foothold in the MP3 market to force people to use the Zune as they sort of do with Windows and Office. For example, I have used Word a little, and from what I've experienced, I absolutely detest the program. The overall experience is condescending, particularly as the program seems to try correcting you at every keystroke. On the other hand, I have used WordPerfect 9 for years. The experience is anything but condescending, and the program doesn't assume anything, relying on me to tell it how to operate, but I am having some problems because I can't get a fully functioning version of WordPerfect on Linux, and I won't go back to Windows.
Fortunately, there is something we can all do. We can all do our best to convince our friends and neighbors to stay with what works. Of course, there are those who will disagree with this opinion, and that's fine. However, I don't like to badmouth something until I've seen what it does, or failed to accomplish something because of the weaknesses in the program.
P.S. I hate OpenOffice for the same reason I hate Microsoft Office.
I consider your comment an insult to Uncle Fester. Just because Ballmer shares a mild resemblance to Uncle Fester doesn't mean their personalities are the same. Personally, I'd rather Uncle Fester run Microsoft. At least then we'd have someone with a real reality distortion field in charge.
Sorry about the jumbled paragraph; allow me to repost my comments:
OS X has an actual update application. It checks for updates as scheduled. If it finds them, it stays open, and tells you that there's updates available without stealing the focus. It's obvious, not hidden in the system tray that, on Windows, defaults to auto-hiding icons after a while.
Not to be particularly argumentative, but I have had a few problems with Software Update maintaining the schedule I have set it to; I checked my update settings just after reading this post, and found that the system hadn't checked for necessary software updates in nine days, despite the setting being clearly set to weekly; usually, my system uses a dial-up connection, as it does now, but two days ago, at the week mark in question, the system was connected to a broadband connection and should have been able to initialize the update, but didn't. Despite this, however, I will say that Software Update is very good, though it is imperfect.
That said, I would also like to state that I agree with your opinion that OS X's update process is far superior to Window's Automatic Update. With the Windows update, I am never sure exactly what I'm updating as the descriptions are never particularly clear (they tell you a lot, but you have to know exactly what the issue is about to understand the descriptions), whereas with the Mac OS, the descriptions are short and to the point, requiring no prior knowledge of the issues involved. Secondly, the update process in Windows is almost completely hidden, where as on the Mac, I can monitor the entire process as needed. The Mac OS's options are also more flexible and reasonable than those in Windows -- my options allow me to always check manually, check automatically, but don't download anything, and check automatically and download whatever is necessary, but the system will never automatically install anything until I order it to do so. I agree with a number of posts which have stated that it is absolutely inexcusable for Windows to automatically install anything without first receiving explicit permission from the user, or to reboot without first asking the user's permission.
OS X has an actual update application. It checks for updates as scheduled. If it finds them, it stays open, and tells you that there's updates available without stealing the focus. It's obvious, not hidden in the system tray that, on Windows, defaults to auto-hiding icons after a while.
Not to be particularly argumentative, but I have had a few problems with Software Update maintaining the schedule I have set it to; I checked my update settings just after reading this post, and found that the system hadn't checked for necessary software updates in nine days, despite the setting being clearly set to weekly; usually, my system uses a dial-up connection, as it does now, but two days ago, at the week mark in question, the system was connected to a broadband connection and should have been able to initialize the update, but didn't. Despite this, however, I will say that Software Update is very good, though it is imperfect.
That said, I would also like to state that I agree with your opinion that OS X's update process is far superior to Window's Automatic Update. With the Windows update, I am never sure exactly what I'm updating as the descriptions are never particularly clear (they tell you a lot, but you have to know exactly what the issue is about to understand the descriptions), whereas with the Mac OS, the descriptions are short and to the point, requiring no prior knowledge of the issues involved. Secondly, the update process in Windows is almost completely hidden, where as on the Mac, I can monitor the entire process as needed. The Mac OS's options are also more flexible and reasonable than those in Windows -- my options allow me to always check manually, check automatically, but don't download anything, and check automatically and download whatever is necessary, but the system will never automatically install anything until I order it to do so. I agree with a number of posts which have stated that it is absolutely inexcusable for Windows to automatically install anything without first receiving explicit permission from the user, or to reboot without first asking the user's permission.
That's why I purchased real headphones. Even then, I can still hear what's going on around me, and as I'm not stupid enough to do anything else while I'm walking, I stay safe.
Slashdot Mirror
I posted a similar experience on this issue on the blog; I was a tech support representative for an ISP and I received numerous calls from customers who received empty emails from the ISP in their hotmail or msn mail accounts that should have been billing invoices; the invoices had a graphic element to them, but the message wasn't sent in the form of an attachment, just HTML (and the only real graphic elements were background color and the company logo, which I've never seen sent a pure attachments), and I cannot recall ever hearing about this problem from customers using another email provider. As I pointed out on the blog, this isn't quite the same thing, but I do feel my experience, indirect as it may have been, supports the point the article was trying to make. Just some food for thought.
The only way for a person to improve is to receive constructive criticism and to listen when others point out their failings. I personally listen when others point out my mistakes, and do my best to correct them, so I likewise believe that concealing information for the sole purpose of one's own advantage, without consideration for anyone who might be hurt because of one's actions, is immoral. Furthermore, I don't understand how you can consider the creation of malware a complex issue; in the long run, no matter how well intentioned the creator is, malware inevitably harms the population as a whole, and all in all, that sounds pretty simple to me.
Lions, Tigers, and even bears roar, but foxes are dogs, so they bark, yip or howl like all other dogs.
From my point of view, the original argument never said anything about making vulnerability reporting compulsory, but that concealing a vulnerability is morally reprehensible, and claiming to keep a vulnerability secret until an exploit is finished is a disgusting excuse.
I agree with you completely. Almost any single version of Windows costs more than other OS. The newest version of Mac OS X has consistently been about $130, and is an equivalent to the business versions of Windows, which typically cost $300+, via a pricing scale that is not even remotely consistent. Furthermore, I have never found the price tag on Microsoft Office, which is nearly twice that of the most expensive equivalent, reasonable; I've used WordPerfect Office until recently, and have only stopped because I can't get version 9 working on Linux, and I have never had a tenth of the problems with WordPerfect as I've had using Word {terrified shutter} at school.
Hardly.
WordPerfect hasn't made a significant change in document format since version 6; I can open any document I create in version 9 in version 6 and the appearance changes only minimally (6 didn't have a spell as you go feature and a few other things 9 has). Besides, the Word document format is, from a composition point of view, unacceptably complex, causing severe issues in document capability (try creating a single line of text that has text with left, center, and right justification, which can be done in WordPerfect with three simple keystrokes, and has been possible since at least version 4.2, but requires futzing around with the ruler bar in Word).
WordPerfect since at least version 9 is designed with true WYSIWYG (so Print Preview shows you the document without any of the formatting icons, but still allows you to edit; do that in Word), has a nice feature called the Property Bar that updates for the function you're presently using, instant preview (which allows you to see how the changes you're making will affect the document before you set anything in stone, allows you to adjust margins on the fly (no dialogs), won't allow you to set margins that can't be printed, and many, many other features Word can't even begin to compare with. Even in adding all of these things, of which, I'll admit, many are functional, not specifically document related, there have not needed to be a major change in document format so new documents can still be opened in older versions.
Are you aware that foxes don't roar?
I agree with you here completely. I've tried using Excel a few times, even once created a complete business related database (because I didn't have a database program available to me), and I detested the experience. On the other hand, I've used Quattro Pro for years, and I find the application much easier and efficient to use; because of the nature of my database, I frequently had to move the cursor across multiple horizontal screens, and I never found an efficient way to do that without the use of a mouse in Excel (as Control and the arrow keys do what End followed by an arrow key does in Quattro Pro and did in every spreadsheet in use before Excel). I'll admit that my biggest complaint here deals with navigation, but this is one of the major reasons I refuse to use Open Office for spreadsheets; Quattro Pro documents are so much easier to move around in (Control+left and Control+right move you left or right one complete screen in QuattroPro, making it easy to navigate horizontally.
That said, I'd like to point out a few other things that have always bothered me about Excel. When I want to change the size of a column or row in Quattro Pro, I simply move the cursor to any cell in the column or row I wish to change, or select a series of cells to change multiple column widths or row heights, and press F12, which brings up the cell properties dialog, then select the Columns/Rows tab, which gives me a variety of options for changing the width and height of my columns or rows, including what measurement unit I wish to use. In Excel, I can only open a single, severely limited dialog for either just column widths or row heights, but not both simultaneously, and the options are severely limited (just a number, if I recall correctly; I've avoided Excel for many years). Another major complain is that Excel only performs calculations on data when it's not being used to do anything else; on the machine I used for my database, this would cause delays in processing information and even, at times, force me to recalculate and resort the entire database manually (this was a huge file, at least 16MB, if not bigger), whereas Quattro Pro performs spreadsheet calculations while you work, so if the system is already working on a heavily complex series of calculations, you're still able to work without any interruption, which for the Quattro Pro version of that same database (which was smaller than the Excel version), simplified the process; I would still perform a manual recalculation at the end of the day, but that was only to satisfy my insane paranoia.
I agree completely. Personally, I've found every version of Windows to be graphically unpleasant, with or without their "smooth" fonts, which have never looked pleasantly smooth at any resolution/size, and as both Gnome and KDE have adapted to elements of the Windows interface, they, too, share the same look and feel. Personally, when it comes to quality graphic interface and usability, I find that the Mac OS is much better; if someone developed a Linux desktop with a decent Mac OS feel to it, I would eagerly promote it.
In terms of interface, I've always found the Mac OS, including all of the pre-OS X versions, to be pleasant and soothing, and the Mac interface to be easier to work with; I have frequently been frustrated with what Windows, Gnome, or KDE won't do, or fight with me about that the Mac does without batting an eye. In terms of stability, however, I have to say that Ubuntu's been the best for me; I may have applications crash on occasion, but I've never once seen the system crash.
I like your point about the way you should spell Mac. MAC stands for Media Access Control.
Fortunately, there is something we can all do. We can all do our best to convince our friends and neighbors to stay with what works. Of course, there are those who will disagree with this opinion, and that's fine. However, I don't like to badmouth something until I've seen what it does, or failed to accomplish something because of the weaknesses in the program.
P.S. I hate OpenOffice for the same reason I hate Microsoft Office.
I consider your comment an insult to Uncle Fester. Just because Ballmer shares a mild resemblance to Uncle Fester doesn't mean their personalities are the same. Personally, I'd rather Uncle Fester run Microsoft. At least then we'd have someone with a real reality distortion field in charge.
What do you mean, Microsoft is now an advertising firm? Microsoft has never been anything but an advertising firm.
OS X has an actual update application. It checks for updates as scheduled. If it finds them, it stays open, and tells you that there's updates available without stealing the focus. It's obvious, not hidden in the system tray that, on Windows, defaults to auto-hiding icons after a while.
Not to be particularly argumentative, but I have had a few problems with Software Update maintaining the schedule I have set it to; I checked my update settings just after reading this post, and found that the system hadn't checked for necessary software updates in nine days, despite the setting being clearly set to weekly; usually, my system uses a dial-up connection, as it does now, but two days ago, at the week mark in question, the system was connected to a broadband connection and should have been able to initialize the update, but didn't. Despite this, however, I will say that Software Update is very good, though it is imperfect.
That said, I would also like to state that I agree with your opinion that OS X's update process is far superior to Window's Automatic Update. With the Windows update, I am never sure exactly what I'm updating as the descriptions are never particularly clear (they tell you a lot, but you have to know exactly what the issue is about to understand the descriptions), whereas with the Mac OS, the descriptions are short and to the point, requiring no prior knowledge of the issues involved. Secondly, the update process in Windows is almost completely hidden, where as on the Mac, I can monitor the entire process as needed. The Mac OS's options are also more flexible and reasonable than those in Windows -- my options allow me to always check manually, check automatically, but don't download anything, and check automatically and download whatever is necessary, but the system will never automatically install anything until I order it to do so. I agree with a number of posts which have stated that it is absolutely inexcusable for Windows to automatically install anything without first receiving explicit permission from the user, or to reboot without first asking the user's permission.
OS X has an actual update application. It checks for updates as scheduled. If it finds them, it stays open, and tells you that there's updates available without stealing the focus. It's obvious, not hidden in the system tray that, on Windows, defaults to auto-hiding icons after a while. Not to be particularly argumentative, but I have had a few problems with Software Update maintaining the schedule I have set it to; I checked my update settings just after reading this post, and found that the system hadn't checked for necessary software updates in nine days, despite the setting being clearly set to weekly; usually, my system uses a dial-up connection, as it does now, but two days ago, at the week mark in question, the system was connected to a broadband connection and should have been able to initialize the update, but didn't. Despite this, however, I will say that Software Update is very good, though it is imperfect. That said, I would also like to state that I agree with your opinion that OS X's update process is far superior to Window's Automatic Update. With the Windows update, I am never sure exactly what I'm updating as the descriptions are never particularly clear (they tell you a lot, but you have to know exactly what the issue is about to understand the descriptions), whereas with the Mac OS, the descriptions are short and to the point, requiring no prior knowledge of the issues involved. Secondly, the update process in Windows is almost completely hidden, where as on the Mac, I can monitor the entire process as needed. The Mac OS's options are also more flexible and reasonable than those in Windows -- my options allow me to always check manually, check automatically, but don't download anything, and check automatically and download whatever is necessary, but the system will never automatically install anything until I order it to do so. I agree with a number of posts which have stated that it is absolutely inexcusable for Windows to automatically install anything without first receiving explicit permission from the user, or to reboot without first asking the user's permission.
That's why I purchased real headphones. Even then, I can still hear what's going on around me, and as I'm not stupid enough to do anything else while I'm walking, I stay safe.