As a state employee, I can assure you we have the time.
Let me clarify- they shouldn't have time for BS. I'd rather the state government I pay taxes to use the more tried and trusted solution instead of using our infrastructure as a cultural software experiment. Less important states like Indiana or Iowa can do that.
Yes, but I use DTP / typesetting software for that: TeX, InDesign, Quark, even Inkscape for 1-pagers. Word processors all fall between "more power than I need for letters and other simple documents" and "Not powerful or easy enough to use for complex layouts".
I think the argument of OpenOffice being implemented by Dell is about 300 miles south of where you're going here. I'm talking about squares and you're talking about cubes. It's more of an argument of "what does the average jackass want to use?" They're going to be interested in being a couple clicks away from something looking decent- I challenge you to explain to your mother how to use a TeX template to make a more attractive document without the need for a fancy word processor.:P
If it's irrelevant, then why did you feel the need to make it a point in the first place?
The point is that solid IT is the difference between a secure system and an insecure system, not the OS.
Oh right, because the OS that a system is running has absolutely NOTHING to do with the security of the system...
In case you've been absent, the initial point was that there's no case to switch. If Illinois was switching from paper and typewriters to computers, we might have a situation where going with Linux could potentially be cheaper.
The point about OS security should not be taken out of context. Within reason, linux and windows are basically secure if implemented properly in an enterprise environment. Just because a fair share of home Windows users like to go on wild clicking sprees and download everything in sight does not make the OS less secure- there just happens to be more idiots using it, since it's more common. My company is entirely run on Microsoft-based servers and workstations internationally and we've yet to have any major security issues or virus outbreaks. I'm fairly sure the "Linux is more secure" argument would fade away if the system ever became dominant... you know, if Hell freezes over.
Effective office suites need only solid design practices and decent software engineering. Good ideas and usability research are the basis for a solid office suite.
Maybe. Who knows, since that's never been tried. Office suites are designed by feature boxes on the side of the packaging. Certainly in the field of word processing, neither Microsoft nor anyone else has really come up with anything particularly good.
was certainly not surprised when Microsoft released a brilliant and productive new office interface and system out of nowhere
One man's "brilliant and productive" is another man's "not better, not worse, just different", I guess.
TWW
I'm not a web developer, so you may well be right about IE and Firefox. I switched from Firefox to IE7 to save on memory.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue in the actual OO vs MSO debate- you seem to be some sort of office nihilist. Do you have a serious professional interest in advanced document formatting? One is undoubtedly better than the other- I agree with the point that the money issue is pretty tiny to most users.
That's irrelevant in this case since they're not switching to Microsoft, but rather staying with Microsoft. The point is that solid IT is the difference between a secure system and an insecure system, not the OS.
Linux isn't a magical fairy security and stability wand. It's a also a massive paradigm shift in formats and IT training. The statement is totally valid- corporations have the resources to interopt alternative workstations into their network in order to try things out and make a shift. State governments don't have time for BS. Microsoft's out of the box solution for them likely has been working and will continue to- they are probably correct that it's cheaper for them than Linux.
Windows Server has been gaining popularity lately with good cause- it's a product that's quickly improving.
Deficiencies. I was very clear the first time. Although I dislike the general Office interface, I'd have to say that MS Office 2007 is beautiful and extremely intuitive.
It's important not to draw parallels between non-related things. IE is inferior to Firefox in many cases, outside of memory footprint. IE is offered because Microsoft needs to offer a web browser- it's the same reason Apple offers Safari. Safari and IE7 are generally decent browsers with solid interfaces, but I think more web companies generally cater to Firefox.
IE7 and Safari remain a "good enough" solution for out-of-the-box consumers.
This isn't web browsers we're talking about, though, it's Office suites. Bringing up an open source strength in order to discredit an open source shortcoming is not going to solve any problems for anyone.
Considering the way web standards operate, it would seem obvious that a horde of random developers would be better at maintaining a browser than a large corporation- firefox is in the domain of the web. Creating a standards compliant browser is the ideal task for an open source software model, especially when open source developers are the ones who are making up the standards.
Effective office suites need only solid design practices and decent software engineering. Good ideas and usability research are the basis for a solid office suite. These are categories where OSS falls flat. I was certainly not surprised when Microsoft released a brilliant and productive new office interface and system out of nowhere- whereas OpenOffice still struggles to resemble Office 2000.
Maybe because Microsoft Office is a superior product. They don't offer beta versions of MS Office either. If customers want to use OpenOffice they can download. In most cases, it's got critical deficiencies that will confuse most customers. I've tried the ol' OpenOffice switcheroo on non-open-source-enthusiasts before. They were basically confused and frustrated with OpenOffice and why it didn't do the same things.
Microsoft Office is a lot more intelligent than people give it credit for.
This isn't even remotely similiar to IBM and Compaq- just because it sounds clever doesn't mean it is. There are a lot of intelligent underlying technologies that keep Microsoft well on the cutting edge. Products like Visual Studio or.NET or DirectX have years of work and research that position them at the forefront of desktop computing.
The beauty of open source projects is that they don't come out of nowhere- we can see their progress. Oddly, they never seem quite 'done'.
The fact of the matter is that we're comparing the work of a disorganized horde to a mega-corporation. Good singular projects come with concentrated effort and a tad bit of corporate management, but Windows is not just an OS or a kernel, it's a desktop solution. It requires decent documentation, intelligent design decisions, and a lot of structure and an endless attention span. Systems like Windows and Apple are untouched in the desktop realm because they're much more than simple operating systems, they're design philosophies and technological concepts as well.
When you look at open source knock-off's of professional software from a design perspective, it's like looking at a child's drawing of a common machine (like a coffee maker)- from memory. You can see the likeness, but it's not quite the same thing- the buttons aren't in the right place, the handle doesn't quite fit, maybe- it's just wrong.
In this case, we have an alpha OS that's just barely pushing binary support with Windows, and everyone is suddenly saying "Yay! Windows is dead! We've cloned it!" Doesn't this seem a little silly?... like maybe Windows is more than just the operating system- it's the product machine as well? The support structure? the evolving technologies and support?
This is like saying that Mac OS X is dead or nearly-through because of the existence of NeXT and GNUStep.
I never said a serious organized corporation won't be able to clone Windows effectively or make a better Windows than Windows. Companies like Be or Apple have proven that the desktop market can be anyones' game, with the right vision and resources. I'm saying it won't be done by the open source community. They play catch-up. They make budget knock-off's. The work remains amateur unless it's done by professionals (in the case of the corporate linux distros). In most cases, they can't be Microsoft because they don't have the vision or organization to reinvent and evolve their entire platform from the ground up at a standard release cycle.
This is insane. You open-source enthusiasts are maniacs.
Kudos to the ReactOS team, this is a really interesting project. It looks fairly promising for what it's supposed to do; provide some basic windows support to a free OS.
However, we've got this moron brigade dancing around like this is some sort of dark secret that Microsoft needs to eliminate or face utter destruction. Am I also to understand that a semi-stable WINE-ish OS is the mark of death for Windows?
There's even suggestions of DirectX 10 compatibility being right around the corner... are you daft? Let me put it very very plainly:
The open-source community will not be able to make a better Windows than Microsoft. At most, they're likely to make a better NT 4.0 sometime in the next 3-5 years. By this point, Windows will be well ahead. I think we need to put this into perspective- this project will be a welcome way for Linux-based companies to preserve LEGACY Windows support in Virtual Machines at decent speed, etc. - possibly to be a virtualized solution to Wine. Otherwise, this is not going to be adopted by the masses... EVER. If you think this, then you really don't understand the consumer market.
It's interesting to see Sony has taken a turn towards positive marketing steps and desirable products- I only hope that the Playstation Home does not overly complicate the networking system for PS3, which lacks a good core network framework.
Trust me, I have a PS3 devkit on my desk.:(
I can tell you that our company had a pretty morose outlook on the product, but we are still spending unbelievable amounts of time supporting the console for our future releases.
Whoever wrote this article suffers from a horrible communication affliction. However, he's brought forth some fascinating insights that I'd like to underline, or perhaps restate:
1) Linux users like to silence the other side and attack peoples' opinions, etc-
This isn't the red menace- it's just a contemporary technological religion. Linux is a dogmatic cult- let's end the comment at that. I remember when I stopped using Linux and went back to Windows, it was like coming out of cult- it requires so much self-deceit and ignoring problems to convince yourself that Linux is the end-all be-all for operating systems. The moment Linux users think what they're doing is the best or perfect is the moment that this product will die- it's going to be an endless game of catch-up.
2) There is a strange connection between Linux and outsourcing.
Oddly, this seems to be true. I had a friend who was an engineer for Motorola- their entire userspace linux implementation was completely coded and handled in China. And the code was terrible. I had another friend who worked for a major bank as a DBA- he maintained lots of high-end Sun servers. Recently, they starting working some Linux servers into the mix. All the Linux servers are maintained in India, by Indian DBA's.
What is with Linux and outsourcing?...
3) Linux is not ready for the desktop
Ubuntu Linux recently failed the Little Sister test. Windows Vista and Mac OS X did not. QED
I work on interfaces- the Little Sister test is my failsafe system for figuring out if a product meant for everyone is actually intuitive.
(Technological relevance: My little sister is 11. Other interesting results show that Mac OS X was easier to pick up for her than Windows Vista and Zune was easier for her than iPod. Go figure!)
Final Thoughts:
If you can't draw the connection between Linux users and an angry mob, you've obviously never tried arguing with them.
I don't think people are looking for a bloated pseudo game-network. How about we focus on a functioning MP system even comparable to Live first? Gamers want apples and they're getting Apple Pie.
Xbox Live is an accessible revolution in online gaming. Where is it stated that Microsoft is not allowed to make a smooth, streamlined premium online environment? They're taking something disjointed and hit-or-miss, the current online gameplay model- which is a pain in the ass and generally leads players to play a smaller scope of online games. Xbox Live is extremely centralized and socially-centered, allowing players to easily match up with anonymous gamers in a fairly smooth environment, make friends, and play a large variety of games across genres with ease.
It's an online gaming solution, just because it's Microsoft doesn't make it wrong.
Any of you who have worked with Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo in console gaming know that Microsoft has excellent development support for game devs- so the whole "everything must be approved by MS" argument is simply invalid. An extra level of QA and support is actually a benefit to developers.
I've personally had an excellent experience working on Xbox 360 titles with Microsoft, especially compared to Sony.
What if X Australian Marketing Department Microsoft Employee simply forgot to whitelist the site and it was reported as a phishing scam as a joke/occasional concern? It's a fairly large company.
These sort of things wouldn't be news if people would simply stop personalizing large corporations and remember that they're massive aggregates of people spread across the world.
I had a similar experience with Ubuntu. I think Mac OS X represents the most effective consumer Unix application ever. It's elegant, beautiful, and usable. In the Open Source sphere, I think HaikuOS has great long-term potential in the form of being a simple and attractive OS based on solid design principles. I wish Linux-distros would focus more on server applications, and less on bridging this unnecessary gap to the "Everything and Nothing" OS.
Of course, I use Vista.:)- but we're talking *nix.
In Windows Vista, there's a very convenient Default Applications settings screen, that includes a pre-loaded Non-Microsoft profile featuring iTunes/Winamp, Firefox, Thunderbird, etc.:)
Honestly, I stand by my statement that Microsoft is still an innovative desktop system with a smooth development environment. I think when people start putting Vista to better use and stop using it as XP+ (more.NET, more use of the smooth Users/Xbox Live system, etc.)- it will be a pretty sweet system, especially for games/development. It's like when XP first came out and it ran like a dog on everyone's old systems, right now. For the most part, the visual benefits of running its interface are really productive. If it's poorly received, we can only hope that Ozzie cleans up the system and goes more net/google/minimal in the future- taking advantage of MS's engineering resources.
I am trying not to be a fanboy here- I am always pleased to see Ubuntu gaining market share, etc- and Apple innovating- but RoughlyDrafted is the most insanely unbalanced frothing-Apple-zealot publication I have ever seen. Let's just disregard this.
Licensing catalogs without DRM could cause a resurgence of casual piracy- it's too convenient to toss tracks around as unsecured digital files- the fact that consumers have to burn/rip cd's or re-record songs in order to break DRM is just enough trouble to influence people to buy rather than download and share. The lawsuits have provided just enough direction for people to start PAYING for music and media.
The most vocal opponents of DRM simply don't like paying for media. The whole 'interoperability' issue is a generally a facade. iTunes and PlaysForSure allow you to burn CD's, thus opening the format. Problem solved! It's like the DRM was never there. They've painted the issue to seem like an 'us' against 'faceless corporation, evil executives' battle and completely cut out the artists and producers as if royalties didn't exist. If you don't like DRM or paying for music, you should start making your own 'open source' music that doesn't cost money to produce.
The fact of the matter is that DRM is the heart of digital media- what apple is doing is just pandering to the favorable image, as usual. Apple has long trumpeted their DRM technology, and are clearly exercising a stranglehold on their customers through their licensing practices. It's about time someone turn the gun on them.
A viable open DRM standard would benefit the consumers, the portable device manufacturers, the record companies, and the free market. If DRM/TPM were integrated in all computer systems and supported by the windows, linux, mac, etc. kernels, it would be easier to fingerprint and secure this media in a fashion that would make it OS and software transparent. If we can make Asia and Europe start paying for media, I think it's more than worth it to us (US) as merchants of intangible electronic goods.
We could definitely use more fair use rights, etc- but we need to wake up and realize that the internet as it stands is not a viable or profitable market for digital media without DRM. Record stores have security cameras, gates to protect their merchandise, why shouldn't that same layer of protection be available online? How else will this be a credible and solid market rather than a payment-optional clusterfuck? It costs money to produce so it should cost money to purchase.
Let me summarize briefly:
There's no infringement on rights or oppressive regime involved here because you do not have a RIGHT to free music. Corporations have a RIGHT to charge you for what they produce. It's not yours, it's theirs, so there's no injustice. It's not Humanity v. Big Brother, it's Cops v. Robbers.
So, since 1997 Linux has gone from laughably-adapted server as a desktop system to poorly adapted server as a desktop system.
Why, now-a-days media professionals prefer linux to...
oh wait, no... linux is only used as a desktop system by enthusiasts.:(
It's good for render farms, though. It's good for servers. It's okay for certain types of workstations.
The only open source operating system that seems to have the right idea for a consumer desktop/media system is HaikuOS. I wish more linux desktop developers would jump off the retard wagon.
The extent to which linux fails on all its basic desktop/multimedia workstation fronts makes the price tag for windows or mac seem quite acceptable.
Wasn't 'lately' a key term here? Linux has always been technologically lagging professionally developed kernels. It's still a horrid mess. It takes money and corporate organization to make a massive technological software project worth a damn.
See: Any open source project not developed by a corporation.
Where are these fairy-tale innovations that corporate OS's don't have?
Slashdot Mirror
As a state employee, I can assure you we have the time.
Let me clarify- they shouldn't have time for BS. I'd rather the state government I pay taxes to use the more tried and trusted solution instead of using our infrastructure as a cultural software experiment. Less important states like Indiana or Iowa can do that.
Yes, but I use DTP / typesetting software for that: TeX, InDesign, Quark, even Inkscape for 1-pagers. Word processors all fall between "more power than I need for letters and other simple documents" and "Not powerful or easy enough to use for complex layouts".
I think the argument of OpenOffice being implemented by Dell is about 300 miles south of where you're going here. I'm talking about squares and you're talking about cubes. It's more of an argument of "what does the average jackass want to use?" They're going to be interested in being a couple clicks away from something looking decent- I challenge you to explain to your mother how to use a TeX template to make a more attractive document without the need for a fancy word processor.If it's irrelevant, then why did you feel the need to make it a point in the first place?
The point is that solid IT is the difference between a secure system and an insecure system, not the OS.
Oh right, because the OS that a system is running has absolutely NOTHING to do with the security of the system...
In case you've been absent, the initial point was that there's no case to switch. If Illinois was switching from paper and typewriters to computers, we might have a situation where going with Linux could potentially be cheaper.
The point about OS security should not be taken out of context. Within reason, linux and windows are basically secure if implemented properly in an enterprise environment. Just because a fair share of home Windows users like to go on wild clicking sprees and download everything in sight does not make the OS less secure- there just happens to be more idiots using it, since it's more common. My company is entirely run on Microsoft-based servers and workstations internationally and we've yet to have any major security issues or virus outbreaks. I'm fairly sure the "Linux is more secure" argument would fade away if the system ever became dominant... you know, if Hell freezes over.
Effective office suites need only solid design practices and decent software engineering. Good ideas and usability research are the basis for a solid office suite.
Maybe. Who knows, since that's never been tried. Office suites are designed by feature boxes on the side of the packaging. Certainly in the field of word processing, neither Microsoft nor anyone else has really come up with anything particularly good.
was certainly not surprised when Microsoft released a brilliant and productive new office interface and system out of nowhere
One man's "brilliant and productive" is another man's "not better, not worse, just different", I guess.
TWW
I'm not a web developer, so you may well be right about IE and Firefox. I switched from Firefox to IE7 to save on memory.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue in the actual OO vs MSO debate- you seem to be some sort of office nihilist. Do you have a serious professional interest in advanced document formatting? One is undoubtedly better than the other- I agree with the point that the money issue is pretty tiny to most users.
That's irrelevant in this case since they're not switching to Microsoft, but rather staying with Microsoft. The point is that solid IT is the difference between a secure system and an insecure system, not the OS.
What does a characterization of the state government have to do with the cost-viability of switching the entirety of their system to Linux?
But they've been using it for quite a while now...
Decent IT departments have no problems with MS.
Linux isn't a magical fairy security and stability wand. It's a also a massive paradigm shift in formats and IT training. The statement is totally valid- corporations have the resources to interopt alternative workstations into their network in order to try things out and make a shift. State governments don't have time for BS. Microsoft's out of the box solution for them likely has been working and will continue to- they are probably correct that it's cheaper for them than Linux.
Windows Server has been gaining popularity lately with good cause- it's a product that's quickly improving.
Deficiencies. I was very clear the first time. Although I dislike the general Office interface, I'd have to say that MS Office 2007 is beautiful and extremely intuitive.
It's important not to draw parallels between non-related things. IE is inferior to Firefox in many cases, outside of memory footprint. IE is offered because Microsoft needs to offer a web browser- it's the same reason Apple offers Safari. Safari and IE7 are generally decent browsers with solid interfaces, but I think more web companies generally cater to Firefox.
IE7 and Safari remain a "good enough" solution for out-of-the-box consumers.
This isn't web browsers we're talking about, though, it's Office suites. Bringing up an open source strength in order to discredit an open source shortcoming is not going to solve any problems for anyone.
Considering the way web standards operate, it would seem obvious that a horde of random developers would be better at maintaining a browser than a large corporation- firefox is in the domain of the web. Creating a standards compliant browser is the ideal task for an open source software model, especially when open source developers are the ones who are making up the standards.
Effective office suites need only solid design practices and decent software engineering. Good ideas and usability research are the basis for a solid office suite. These are categories where OSS falls flat. I was certainly not surprised when Microsoft released a brilliant and productive new office interface and system out of nowhere- whereas OpenOffice still struggles to resemble Office 2000.
Maybe because Microsoft Office is a superior product. They don't offer beta versions of MS Office either. If customers want to use OpenOffice they can download. In most cases, it's got critical deficiencies that will confuse most customers. I've tried the ol' OpenOffice switcheroo on non-open-source-enthusiasts before. They were basically confused and frustrated with OpenOffice and why it didn't do the same things.
Microsoft Office is a lot more intelligent than people give it credit for.
This isn't even remotely similiar to IBM and Compaq- just because it sounds clever doesn't mean it is. There are a lot of intelligent underlying technologies that keep Microsoft well on the cutting edge. Products like Visual Studio or .NET or DirectX have years of work and research that position them at the forefront of desktop computing.
The beauty of open source projects is that they don't come out of nowhere- we can see their progress. Oddly, they never seem quite 'done'.
The fact of the matter is that we're comparing the work of a disorganized horde to a mega-corporation. Good singular projects come with concentrated effort and a tad bit of corporate management, but Windows is not just an OS or a kernel, it's a desktop solution. It requires decent documentation, intelligent design decisions, and a lot of structure and an endless attention span. Systems like Windows and Apple are untouched in the desktop realm because they're much more than simple operating systems, they're design philosophies and technological concepts as well.
When you look at open source knock-off's of professional software from a design perspective, it's like looking at a child's drawing of a common machine (like a coffee maker)- from memory. You can see the likeness, but it's not quite the same thing- the buttons aren't in the right place, the handle doesn't quite fit, maybe- it's just wrong.
In this case, we have an alpha OS that's just barely pushing binary support with Windows, and everyone is suddenly saying "Yay! Windows is dead! We've cloned it!" Doesn't this seem a little silly?... like maybe Windows is more than just the operating system- it's the product machine as well? The support structure? the evolving technologies and support?
This is like saying that Mac OS X is dead or nearly-through because of the existence of NeXT and GNUStep.
I never said a serious organized corporation won't be able to clone Windows effectively or make a better Windows than Windows. Companies like Be or Apple have proven that the desktop market can be anyones' game, with the right vision and resources. I'm saying it won't be done by the open source community. They play catch-up. They make budget knock-off's. The work remains amateur unless it's done by professionals (in the case of the corporate linux distros). In most cases, they can't be Microsoft because they don't have the vision or organization to reinvent and evolve their entire platform from the ground up at a standard release cycle.
This is insane. You open-source enthusiasts are maniacs.
Kudos to the ReactOS team, this is a really interesting project. It looks fairly promising for what it's supposed to do; provide some basic windows support to a free OS.
However, we've got this moron brigade dancing around like this is some sort of dark secret that Microsoft needs to eliminate or face utter destruction. Am I also to understand that a semi-stable WINE-ish OS is the mark of death for Windows?
There's even suggestions of DirectX 10 compatibility being right around the corner... are you daft? Let me put it very very plainly:
The open-source community will not be able to make a better Windows than Microsoft. At most, they're likely to make a better NT 4.0 sometime in the next 3-5 years. By this point, Windows will be well ahead. I think we need to put this into perspective- this project will be a welcome way for Linux-based companies to preserve LEGACY Windows support in Virtual Machines at decent speed, etc. - possibly to be a virtualized solution to Wine. Otherwise, this is not going to be adopted by the masses... EVER. If you think this, then you really don't understand the consumer market.
It' a AAA title. Porting to PS3 is profitable, at least. The point is it's not our primary console. We view the PS3 versions of these games as ports.
It's interesting to see Sony has taken a turn towards positive marketing steps and desirable products- I only hope that the Playstation Home does not overly complicate the networking system for PS3, which lacks a good core network framework.
:(
Trust me, I have a PS3 devkit on my desk.
I can tell you that our company had a pretty morose outlook on the product, but we are still spending unbelievable amounts of time supporting the console for our future releases.
If this is true, then Linux has been ridiculously stagnant for the last 10 years.
Whoever wrote this article suffers from a horrible communication affliction. However, he's brought forth some fascinating insights that I'd like to underline, or perhaps restate:
1) Linux users like to silence the other side and attack peoples' opinions, etc-
This isn't the red menace- it's just a contemporary technological religion. Linux is a dogmatic cult- let's end the comment at that. I remember when I stopped using Linux and went back to Windows, it was like coming out of cult- it requires so much self-deceit and ignoring problems to convince yourself that Linux is the end-all be-all for operating systems. The moment Linux users think what they're doing is the best or perfect is the moment that this product will die- it's going to be an endless game of catch-up.
2) There is a strange connection between Linux and outsourcing.
Oddly, this seems to be true. I had a friend who was an engineer for Motorola- their entire userspace linux implementation was completely coded and handled in China. And the code was terrible. I had another friend who worked for a major bank as a DBA- he maintained lots of high-end Sun servers. Recently, they starting working some Linux servers into the mix. All the Linux servers are maintained in India, by Indian DBA's.
What is with Linux and outsourcing?...
3) Linux is not ready for the desktop
Ubuntu Linux recently failed the Little Sister test. Windows Vista and Mac OS X did not. QED
I work on interfaces- the Little Sister test is my failsafe system for figuring out if a product meant for everyone is actually intuitive.
(Technological relevance: My little sister is 11. Other interesting results show that Mac OS X was easier to pick up for her than Windows Vista and Zune was easier for her than iPod. Go figure!)
Final Thoughts:
If you can't draw the connection between Linux users and an angry mob, you've obviously never tried arguing with them.
I don't think people are looking for a bloated pseudo game-network. How about we focus on a functioning MP system even comparable to Live first? Gamers want apples and they're getting Apple Pie.
Xbox Live is an accessible revolution in online gaming. Where is it stated that Microsoft is not allowed to make a smooth, streamlined premium online environment? They're taking something disjointed and hit-or-miss, the current online gameplay model- which is a pain in the ass and generally leads players to play a smaller scope of online games. Xbox Live is extremely centralized and socially-centered, allowing players to easily match up with anonymous gamers in a fairly smooth environment, make friends, and play a large variety of games across genres with ease.
It's an online gaming solution, just because it's Microsoft doesn't make it wrong.
Any of you who have worked with Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo in console gaming know that Microsoft has excellent development support for game devs- so the whole "everything must be approved by MS" argument is simply invalid. An extra level of QA and support is actually a benefit to developers.
I've personally had an excellent experience working on Xbox 360 titles with Microsoft, especially compared to Sony.
What if X Australian Marketing Department Microsoft Employee simply forgot to whitelist the site and it was reported as a phishing scam as a joke/occasional concern? It's a fairly large company.
These sort of things wouldn't be news if people would simply stop personalizing large corporations and remember that they're massive aggregates of people spread across the world.
I had a similar experience with Ubuntu. I think Mac OS X represents the most effective consumer Unix application ever. It's elegant, beautiful, and usable. In the Open Source sphere, I think HaikuOS has great long-term potential in the form of being a simple and attractive OS based on solid design principles. I wish Linux-distros would focus more on server applications, and less on bridging this unnecessary gap to the "Everything and Nothing" OS.
:)- but we're talking *nix.
Of course, I use Vista.
In Windows Vista, there's a very convenient Default Applications settings screen, that includes a pre-loaded Non-Microsoft profile featuring iTunes/Winamp, Firefox, Thunderbird, etc. :)
.NET, more use of the smooth Users/Xbox Live system, etc.)- it will be a pretty sweet system, especially for games/development. It's like when XP first came out and it ran like a dog on everyone's old systems, right now. For the most part, the visual benefits of running its interface are really productive. If it's poorly received, we can only hope that Ozzie cleans up the system and goes more net/google/minimal in the future- taking advantage of MS's engineering resources.
Honestly, I stand by my statement that Microsoft is still an innovative desktop system with a smooth development environment. I think when people start putting Vista to better use and stop using it as XP+ (more
I am trying not to be a fanboy here- I am always pleased to see Ubuntu gaining market share, etc- and Apple innovating- but RoughlyDrafted is the most insanely unbalanced frothing-Apple-zealot publication I have ever seen. Let's just disregard this.
Licensing catalogs without DRM could cause a resurgence of casual piracy- it's too convenient to toss tracks around as unsecured digital files- the fact that consumers have to burn/rip cd's or re-record songs in order to break DRM is just enough trouble to influence people to buy rather than download and share. The lawsuits have provided just enough direction for people to start PAYING for music and media.
The most vocal opponents of DRM simply don't like paying for media. The whole 'interoperability' issue is a generally a facade. iTunes and PlaysForSure allow you to burn CD's, thus opening the format. Problem solved! It's like the DRM was never there. They've painted the issue to seem like an 'us' against 'faceless corporation, evil executives' battle and completely cut out the artists and producers as if royalties didn't exist. If you don't like DRM or paying for music, you should start making your own 'open source' music that doesn't cost money to produce.
The fact of the matter is that DRM is the heart of digital media- what apple is doing is just pandering to the favorable image, as usual. Apple has long trumpeted their DRM technology, and are clearly exercising a stranglehold on their customers through their licensing practices. It's about time someone turn the gun on them.
A viable open DRM standard would benefit the consumers, the portable device manufacturers, the record companies, and the free market. If DRM/TPM were integrated in all computer systems and supported by the windows, linux, mac, etc. kernels, it would be easier to fingerprint and secure this media in a fashion that would make it OS and software transparent. If we can make Asia and Europe start paying for media, I think it's more than worth it to us (US) as merchants of intangible electronic goods.
We could definitely use more fair use rights, etc- but we need to wake up and realize that the internet as it stands is not a viable or profitable market for digital media without DRM. Record stores have security cameras, gates to protect their merchandise, why shouldn't that same layer of protection be available online? How else will this be a credible and solid market rather than a payment-optional clusterfuck? It costs money to produce so it should cost money to purchase.
Let me summarize briefly:
There's no infringement on rights or oppressive regime involved here because you do not have a RIGHT to free music. Corporations have a RIGHT to charge you for what they produce. It's not yours, it's theirs, so there's no injustice. It's not Humanity v. Big Brother, it's Cops v. Robbers.
And the market share backs me up.
:(
So, since 1997 Linux has gone from laughably-adapted server as a desktop system to poorly adapted server as a desktop system.
Why, now-a-days media professionals prefer linux to...
oh wait, no... linux is only used as a desktop system by enthusiasts.
It's good for render farms, though. It's good for servers. It's okay for certain types of workstations.
The only open source operating system that seems to have the right idea for a consumer desktop/media system is HaikuOS. I wish more linux desktop developers would jump off the retard wagon.
The extent to which linux fails on all its basic desktop/multimedia workstation fronts makes the price tag for windows or mac seem quite acceptable.
Wasn't 'lately' a key term here? Linux has always been technologically lagging professionally developed kernels. It's still a horrid mess. It takes money and corporate organization to make a massive technological software project worth a damn.
See: Any open source project not developed by a corporation.
Where are these fairy-tale innovations that corporate OS's don't have?
Isn't someone supposed to ride in on a white horse and make a "confirm or deny" joke?
Ha-ha! Bravo! score 5! Funny!