If Mozilla installed an IE plugin that made Firefox extensions available on IE whenever you installed Firefox, people would be understandably angry with Firefox. Modifying software that isn't yours in a regular update is not "playing nice."
FireFox is a WebBrowser. Windows is an operating system. You are talking apples to oranges. System-wide functionality SHOULD be provided by the OS. If you install the.Net Framework, you should expect to get.Net Framework functionality across your system. Also, the only people who received this update automatically are the people who have updates set to be automatically installed. That's hardly 'not playing nice'.
We aren't talking about an Internet Explorer update that installed a FireFox addon. We're talking about an OS level update for a Framework used across the system that added an 'addon' to the 2nd most common webbrowser so that the functionality provided by that framework would function in that browser. You don't have to install the.Net Framework. You don't have to have automatic updates turned on.
You talk about trust boundaries - but *Windows* is a system-wide OS. Installing an addon hardly violates that. And if you feel it does, you shouldn't have had automatic updates turned on. This type of thing is not new.
Microsoft wants Firefox so dependent on MS's proprietary stack that it doesn't matter if people are using Firefox or IE - just so they're using Windows. The browser is only a piece of the puzzle.
Firefox is NOT dependent on MS's proprietary stack. This addon has no impact to FireFox running. This is additional functionality that FireFox does not provide, for users of the.Net Framework.
Maybe you don't remember the days of 'Sorry, you must use IE6 to visit this website.'. Without ClickOnce support in FireFox, you end up in a situation where you NEED to use IE.
Because you can 'undo' software changes without any actual damages, unlike your example.
Basically, if you don't trust Microsoft to run automatic updates on your machine, turn them off. If you have automatic updates on your machine, Microsoft is going to update your software.
In this particular case, the changes are completely reversible.
So, *if* you have automatic updates turned on, and you *don't* want this, but you've already got it; you can follow the link above and turn it off.
And that was released three weeks before this article was written. Why it's not mentioned in the article...I can't tell you.
Basically, if you care enough/know enough to be bothered by this update - you can get rid of it in about 2 minutes. That 2 minutes is the cost you pay for having automatic updates turned on.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=cecc62dc-96a7-4657-af91-6383ba034eab [microsoft.com].NET Framework 3.5 SP1, the.NET Framework Assistant enables Firefox to use the ClickOnce technology that is included in the.NET Framework. The.NET Framework Assistant is added at the machine-level to enable its functionality for all users on the machine. As a result, the Uninstall button is shown as unavailable in the Firefox Add-ons list because standard users are not permitted to uninstall machine-level components. In this update for.NET Framework 3.5 SP1 and in Windows 7, the.NET Framework Assistant will be installed on a per-user basis. As a result, the Uninstall button will be functional in the Firefox Add-ons list.
This was released on 5/6/2009
Again, seems like a giant over-reaction.
The article was written 5/30/2009.
You'd think the author would take a few seconds before sticking his foot in his mouth, again.
If MS makes it so that.Net/ClickOnce/Silverlight or anything else, ONLY works in IE; people get upset that MS is being anti-competitive.
If MS does make it so that everyone can use.Net/ClickOnce/Silverlight or anything else, then MS is just trying to force EVERYONE to use their technologies.
I'm completely okay with MS giving out an addon that gives you.Net Framework functionality when you install/update the.Net Framework.
---
Why would FireFox want to support ClickOnce? Because FireFox is a web-browser. FireFox has no offering that competes with something like ClickOnce. Before MS released this patch, there were already (unofficial, not-supported) addons that provided the same functionality. (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1608)
FireFox supports the IFRAME. A tag that MS just made up, that didn't conform to any standards. Why did FireFox support it? Because FireFox wanted it's users to be able to use FireFox for anything they could use IE for. ClickOnce is no different. If a user wants to have the.Net Framework/wants to use ClickOnce on their machine - why *wouldn't* FireFox want support for it to be there?
Not supporting it means people HAVE to use IE to get that functionality.
---
Beyond that, you don't *have* to edit the registry to remove it. That's a hack.
When the plug-in gets installed, it's not for an individual user; it's for the entire system. Other FireFox plug-ins behave the same way. You can't remove those either, not directly, from FireFox. Because FireFox is treating you as an individual user. You, as a user, can disable the Add-on.
Everything else about the.Net Framework is also installed for everyone on the system. The same way security patches are installed. Individual users on the machine don't have to each update critical windows crap.
And you can download an update that will make the addons to FireFox work on a per-user level. At which point, FireFox allows you to easily uninstall it with the in-FireFox GUI.
I haven't tested it, but I'm fairly confident removing the.Net Framework will remove the FireFox addons as well.
So again, I'm *not* saying Microsoft is in the right here. But I am saying, 99% of the people I hear talking about this are grossly over-reacting.
We're talking about an Update to the.Net Framework that added.Net functionality to FireFox. If you didn't install the Update, you wouldn't get the functionality.
At best, this is a reminder to turn off 'Automatic Updates' if you don't trust Microsoft to be updating your files. It's hardly a case of Microsoft trying to 'discredit' FireFox or anything else.
Looking back I realize my post probably came across as being 'Pro MS'. I'm actually not. I just don't see it as 'pure evil' like a lot of people here.
Microsoft doesn't install updates without your permission. A lot of people turn on 'Automatic Updates' and it's a good idea for most people. But yes, part of 'Automatic Updates' means that Microsoft is going to install updates, to your software, automatically.
Oddly enough, a while back, people were flaming MS for advocating ClickOnce when it would only be usable in IE. Then, from what I understand, a 3rd party addon was developed for FireFox and still, people complained.
MS now has an 'official' plug-in for FireFox, and people are upset that it was automatically installed onto machines that have turned on Automatic Updates.
I'm not saying MS handled this in the best of all possible ways; but I'm also saying, I don't see the malicious intent here.
People who run updates for the.Net Framework are doing so because they want the.Net Framework's functionality on their machine.
The.Net Framework includes 'Click Once'. Click Once is deployment/installation tool that is supposed to make.Net stuff 'just work'. You can 'Click Once' from your web browser and have the application installed on your machine and working. Simple. Easy.
Microsoft included it for the BENEFIT of FireFox users. If you use FireFox and don't want the Click Once deployment functionality installed on your machine, you'd think people would avoid installing it on their machine?
When MS doesn't make their new toys (Click Once) play nice with other browsers, people attack them. When MS develops an add-on that adds desirable functionality to a competitors browser - again, people get upset.
Removing it is a trivial task for anyone who knows enough to care.
I dunno, personally, I don't see the problem. 'OMFG - I installed the.Net Framework on my machine and it added stuff that makes the.Net Framework work on my machine!!! I h4te Micro$uck!'
If FireFox wants to break support for ClickOnce in their browser, I'm sure they could. But then you are back to the days of IE6. 'Okay Users, we need to run this app on our local intranet. It uses ClickOnce - so you need to run IE and go to \\xyz\ourapp to run it. Don't use anything but IE though, because this only works with IE'.
Yeah - they had this back when I was in high school.
Only, instead of a prize; I got an F in my programming class, threats of expulsion, and had to promise never to use one of the "school's" computers again.
^^^ Good point. But I fail to see what that has to do with my post?
Ubuntu is a particular flavor of Linux. Much like a pitbull is a particular type of dog.
If your pitbull did something that was typical of dogs in general; it would be perfectly acceptable to say so. Example: "Yup, dogs sure love bacon"
The only time I said 'Linux' in my post, I was referring to misleading information presented by Linux fans/users (that includes, but is not limited to, Ubuntu fans/users). Linux's strengths are often oversold (and that includes software you'd typically expect to use on Linux. Open Office, for example. I was told, countless times, that it would do 'Everything Office does' - until I installed it, had problems, and returned to the forums to *then* discover, it had a long list of short comings. You can find old articles about Linux from 2000 saying how greatly improved it is and how it's ready for the average home user. Then, in 2001 saying how, in the past, hardware support sucked and it was only for geeks, BUT NOW, it's ready for the average home user. You can find that same article, every year, for the past 10 years).
You are certainly free to disagree with my statement that Linux is often over-hyped by the Linux community, but I used the terms correctly.
They are saying it is 'Slick' as in 'responsive'. They are NOT saying that it is 'pretty', but they want people to think that.
If you posted up screens or vids of the interface in Windows 7, OS X....and then Ubuntu; Ubuntu would be the least attractive, least pretty, least 'slick'.
They do 'packages' that keep your prices the same no matter what. If you buy just basic cable TV, the price is $40 dollars a month; but add on internet and it's $50 a month.
If you just want internet it's $44.95 a month.
It turns out, at least out here, if you are paying for the internet - all you need to do to get the basic cable tv channels is pry open the cable box on the side of your house and remove their 'filter' that blocks out the range of the TV channels.
So, given that people can easily remove the filter, and given that - with the internet - people can watch all the TV they want; the cable company has made it so that, either way - you're paying ~$50 dollars.
But it should be evidence in court of law; as it speaks to his mental state.
If I post on Facebook saying that my mood is 'homicidal', that might be 'creepy' but not criminal. But if I KILL SOMEONE THAT DAY; it's certainly evidence to suggest that my claim of self-defense might be crap - because I was feeling 'homicidal' that day and wanted to kill someone.
Likewise - if this guy is feeling 'devious' and then arrests someone that day; well, that's certainly evidence to support to claim that the cop did something DEVIOUS in the arrest. Since he broadcast to the entire world how he feels.
Personally, any cop who feels the need to act like an e-hardass on Facebook is too immature to have a job as a cop. So, I'd like to see this guy fired.
I don't know the specifics of your particular case but...
In my experience it is rare to actually get a Windows CD when you buy a laptop or desktop. I don't think I've ever had that happen (not saying it doesn't happen, just haven't seen it myself).
I always ended up with a 'System Restore' of some sort, branded by the particular manufacture.
But yeah - it sounds like someone else had a copy of your key, particularly with a laptop (they typically don't have major hardware reconfigurations) and particularly because you said it happened 'every time' you went to install Windows, and not just every time, after a major update to your hardware.
I'd say that, realistically, you probably shouldn't take a single, extreme, bad experience and apply it to a larger, broader situation. For example, you say you can install linux in 20 minutes....and maybe you can; but in my last attempt to install Linux the thing was a total POS and didn't detect any of my hardware.
That's not a reason to abandon the concept of Linux, that's a reason to improve the issues that are a problem in Linux.
Likewise, in your situation, it's not a reason to abandon WGA (which servers a valid and useful purpose); it's a reason to improve WGA so that less legit, paying, customers have to have negative experiences like yours.
In the last 10 years of upgrading, downgrading, swapping in and swapping out; I've only ever had Windows complain once. And it was, literally, the easiest phone call I've ever had to get it fixed. I was on the phone for less than 3 minutes which is amazing. Maybe things have changed in the last five years? I dunno.
I do know that I've upgraded my CPU, my RAM, my Video card, added a sound card, added a RAID controller, removed a RAID controller, removed a CD-ROM, added a DVD burner and my legit copy of Vista Ultimate never got angry or did anything wrong.
If you *don't* authenticate your copy of Windows - all that happens is that you can't install particular updates and you get nag-ware. It remains functional.
I'm the first to complain about ridiculous methods companies make legit users go through to use their products (like requiring the DVD be in the drive - drives me crazy). But, I don't have a problem with the Windows Activation.
Vista requires an internet connection. It's right on the box and on the website. In this day and age, it's reasonable to require internet access. For 99% of people who buy Vista (probably more like 99.999%) this is a non-issue.
Activation is painless, it takes, literally seconds. And then it's done.
Maybe I'm missing something; but I don't see any reason to get my panties in a wad over this.
Besides that, there is a lot more continued development to an OS like Vista than to the crappy game I'm trying to play that demands the CD be in the drive. And, without that CD - the game won't play. Without activating Windows - it just nags me a bit. Activating let's you get all of the Service packs and updates and what not, good things to have.
The only thing I've learned from this whole economic mess is that throwing money at problems doesn't fix them.
It prolongs them.
If inflated house prices result in a crash - giving money to people buy houses and artificially keep the price higher; is only going to keep the crash going longer, albeit more slowly.
Giving money to car companies who suck are only going to encourage them to continue to suck. Sucking is now a viable business model.
Do you all remember back when everyone was saying how Netscape was doomed to fail because MS was a monopoloy!!!! Remember that? Here's the truth, Netscape sucked. When FireFox came around, MS still had the same level of control - IE was still free, IE was still included with the OS.
But FireFox didn't suck - so people used it.
In areas where open source doesn't suck - people use it (servers, mostly). Areas where it does suck - people don't (Desktop).
Devoting money to 'open source' is silly because it's forcing tax payers to 'buy' crappy software. If it worked, as was great, people would use it, people would even pay for it, voluntarily.
And, in the extreme situation, where the influx of money makes open source more viable - once the government stops throwing money at it, and open source is more robust, stable, and performant than closed source software - congrats; you've just displaced an entire industry of software developers.
And because of the nature of open source software - now that you aren't funding it with tax dollars - it doesn't get funded. It's all open. Everyone has at it. Not just the US - any country that wants it. You've just paid the development costs for China's new web servers while putting Joe Blow the local software developer out of business.
Looks like someone took an Intro to Philosophy at their university and wants the world to know just how 'deep' they are.
I bet you didn't even get an A in the class.
You can sit around for *years* and debate whether or not Slashdot exits, or if it is simply a construct of your imagination. And you can go on and on, at great length; trying to determine whether you can determine *anything* because, everything, as you said, that you can perceive is from your own reference point. How can 'real' be defined.
The same old, tired, arguments for and against these have been tossed around for, hundreds and hundreds of years. Probably longer.
Pointing them out, in unrelated contexts...like a Slashdot discussion of Microsoft software patch makes you look like a fresh out of Phil101 college d-bag who plays hacky-sack in the quad after lunch and before BIO 102.
Next you'll point out how maybe the colors you see are like...ya know...different from what other people and that perception is all relative. WHOA!
But yeah, the whole 'Like, dude, it's really just a symbol! That's all it is, just a symbol' crap is really a stretch.
Yes, of course, it's a symbol. Symbols are used extensively by people. It makes communication easier. Is it easier to define a large company like MSFT by saying, 'Microsoft' or 'the company responsible for the creation of Windows, Office,.Net, Visual Studio, etc, etc, etc...' or perhaps a complete list of employees start and end dates would make you happier?
Of course it's a symbol. Duh.
Pointing it out adds nothing to the conversation. Nothing. And feeling the need to point it out means that you think you are a LOT more clever than you really are.
So like, you could have 'hackers' hacking the virtual simulation created by enslave their minds?!
And maybe the only way to keep us from knowing it's a simulation is to give us some amount of choice, in the form of a left over sum at the end of a long calculation. A single person would be created to contain that choice.
We'd call him...'The one'. Only, he wouldn't know that he was the one, but oddly enough, would choose the name of 'Neo' for himself.
The rules of the simulation would not apply to Neo.
Here's the deal with Linux, it's hardware support is *always* behind the times. Hardware developers don't support Linux, so when something new comes out, it is sold in the store, with a CD/DVD that contains Windows drivers.
When I buy a new piece of hardware - DO NOT TELL ME WINDOWS DOESN'T SUPPORT IT IF THE DISK THAT COMES WITH IT INCLUDES THE WINDOWS DRIVER.
That's retarded.
And last I checked, 100% of everything sold at a store like BestBuy or Circuit City includes drivers for Windows.
The only exception would be Mac-only hardware that is clearly labeled as such.
When wireless USB network adapters first came out - it was BLOODY NIGHTMARE to get Linux to support it. It's *STILL* a bloody nightmare.
In Linux, I'm happy if I can connect to the net AT ALL with my hardware - last time I did it, I had to use a hacked emulator that used Window's drivers and added overhead. AND it didn't support encryption AND it wouldn't run anywhere near the Wireless-N speed I get in Windows.
I've had that thing for years now, and I can find a few websites and forums that have detailed steps on how to try and hack it to work.
And, whatever the newest hardware is, you'll always have the same problem.
If I go out and buy a new Blu-ray burner from BestBuy, today - without any research at all - I'm 100% certain I can buy one that will run in Windows without any trouble.
Can you say the same of Linux? Heck no. You can't.
Blizzard *doesn't* care at all about Linux users. They care about $$$.
Blizzard offers no official support Linux. Getting WoW to run in Linux is a nightmare...and Blizzard has enough problems supporting their Windows Users.
If you are salaried and you establish 'work hours' then life is good. From 8am until 5pm you are 'working' and you need to be able to answer e-mails and phone calls. No problems.
What you want to avoid is doing remote contract work where you have to bill hourly. You are told to do X at 8am in the morning and after a few hours of development you realize that you need clarification on X. So you send an e-mail/make a phone call...and you get no answer. It's not until the next day that you get your answer.
So from 10am until 8am the next business day you were unable to do any work. You can really only bill for two hours though, because you were 'waiting' for the rest.
Seriously - the next time you are about to post a rant about how great Linux is and how it's been 'ready for the desktop' for years now, and how it does everything you could ever want....
Remember that crap as simple as Flash doesn't work for crap.
Linux....just as broken and behind the times as it's ever been - but hey, it's free!
They've been able to do this since the 50s. Right now, there are LOTS of different drugs you can take that, with no change in your exercise or diet regime will make you stronger and leaner.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, there's the fact that you can't uninstall this add-on without uninstalling .NET. That's something that malware does.
I'm not trying to come across like a jack ass, so forgive me if that's how it sounds. But that's just not true.
First off, that's simply not true. For weeks, you've been able to. http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=cecc62dc-96a7-4657-af91-6383ba034eab
If Mozilla installed an IE plugin that made Firefox extensions available on IE whenever you installed Firefox, people would be understandably angry with Firefox. Modifying software that isn't yours in a regular update is not "playing nice."
FireFox is a WebBrowser. Windows is an operating system. You are talking apples to oranges. System-wide functionality SHOULD be provided by the OS. If you install the .Net Framework, you should expect to get .Net Framework functionality across your system. Also, the only people who received this update automatically are the people who have updates set to be automatically installed. That's hardly 'not playing nice'.
We aren't talking about an Internet Explorer update that installed a FireFox addon. We're talking about an OS level update for a Framework used across the system that added an 'addon' to the 2nd most common webbrowser so that the functionality provided by that framework would function in that browser. You don't have to install the .Net Framework. You don't have to have automatic updates turned on.
You talk about trust boundaries - but *Windows* is a system-wide OS. Installing an addon hardly violates that. And if you feel it does, you shouldn't have had automatic updates turned on. This type of thing is not new.
Microsoft wants Firefox so dependent on MS's proprietary stack that it doesn't matter if people are using Firefox or IE - just so they're using Windows. The browser is only a piece of the puzzle.
Firefox is NOT dependent on MS's proprietary stack. This addon has no impact to FireFox running. This is additional functionality that FireFox does not provide, for users of the .Net Framework.
Maybe you don't remember the days of 'Sorry, you must use IE6 to visit this website.'. Without ClickOnce support in FireFox, you end up in a situation where you NEED to use IE.
Because you can 'undo' software changes without any actual damages, unlike your example.
Basically, if you don't trust Microsoft to run automatic updates on your machine, turn them off. If you have automatic updates on your machine, Microsoft is going to update your software.
In this particular case, the changes are completely reversible.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=cecc62dc-96a7-4657-af91-6383ba034eab
So, *if* you have automatic updates turned on, and you *don't* want this, but you've already got it; you can follow the link above and turn it off.
And that was released three weeks before this article was written. Why it's not mentioned in the article...I can't tell you.
Basically, if you care enough/know enough to be bothered by this update - you can get rid of it in about 2 minutes. That 2 minutes is the cost you pay for having automatic updates turned on.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=cecc62dc-96a7-4657-af91-6383ba034eab [microsoft.com] .NET Framework 3.5 SP1, the .NET Framework Assistant enables Firefox to use the ClickOnce technology that is included in the .NET Framework. The .NET Framework Assistant is added at the machine-level to enable its functionality for all users on the machine. As a result, the Uninstall button is shown as unavailable in the Firefox Add-ons list because standard users are not permitted to uninstall machine-level components. In this update for .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 and in Windows 7, the .NET Framework Assistant will be installed on a per-user basis. As a result, the Uninstall button will be functional in the Firefox Add-ons list.
This was released on 5/6/2009
Again, seems like a giant over-reaction.
The article was written 5/30/2009.
You'd think the author would take a few seconds before sticking his foot in his mouth, again.
It's a catch-22.
If MS makes it so that .Net/ClickOnce/Silverlight or anything else, ONLY works in IE; people get upset that MS is being anti-competitive.
If MS does make it so that everyone can use .Net/ClickOnce/Silverlight or anything else, then MS is just trying to force EVERYONE to use their technologies.
I'm completely okay with MS giving out an addon that gives you .Net Framework functionality when you install/update the .Net Framework.
---
Why would FireFox want to support ClickOnce? Because FireFox is a web-browser. FireFox has no offering that competes with something like ClickOnce. Before MS released this patch, there were already (unofficial, not-supported) addons that provided the same functionality. (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1608)
FireFox supports the IFRAME. A tag that MS just made up, that didn't conform to any standards. Why did FireFox support it? Because FireFox wanted it's users to be able to use FireFox for anything they could use IE for. ClickOnce is no different. If a user wants to have the .Net Framework/wants to use ClickOnce on their machine - why *wouldn't* FireFox want support for it to be there?
Not supporting it means people HAVE to use IE to get that functionality.
---
Beyond that, you don't *have* to edit the registry to remove it. That's a hack.
When the plug-in gets installed, it's not for an individual user; it's for the entire system. Other FireFox plug-ins behave the same way. You can't remove those either, not directly, from FireFox. Because FireFox is treating you as an individual user. You, as a user, can disable the Add-on.
Everything else about the .Net Framework is also installed for everyone on the system. The same way security patches are installed. Individual users on the machine don't have to each update critical windows crap.
You can go here: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=cecc62dc-96a7-4657-af91-6383ba034eab
(That's right, Microsoft.com)
And you can download an update that will make the addons to FireFox work on a per-user level. At which point, FireFox allows you to easily uninstall it with the in-FireFox GUI.
I haven't tested it, but I'm fairly confident removing the .Net Framework will remove the FireFox addons as well.
So again, I'm *not* saying Microsoft is in the right here. But I am saying, 99% of the people I hear talking about this are grossly over-reacting.
We're talking about an Update to the .Net Framework that added .Net functionality to FireFox. If you didn't install the Update, you wouldn't get the functionality.
At best, this is a reminder to turn off 'Automatic Updates' if you don't trust Microsoft to be updating your files. It's hardly a case of Microsoft trying to 'discredit' FireFox or anything else.
Looking back I realize my post probably came across as being 'Pro MS'. I'm actually not. I just don't see it as 'pure evil' like a lot of people here.
Microsoft doesn't install updates without your permission. A lot of people turn on 'Automatic Updates' and it's a good idea for most people. But yes, part of 'Automatic Updates' means that Microsoft is going to install updates, to your software, automatically.
Oddly enough, a while back, people were flaming MS for advocating ClickOnce when it would only be usable in IE. Then, from what I understand, a 3rd party addon was developed for FireFox and still, people complained.
MS now has an 'official' plug-in for FireFox, and people are upset that it was automatically installed onto machines that have turned on Automatic Updates.
I'm not saying MS handled this in the best of all possible ways; but I'm also saying, I don't see the malicious intent here.
People who run updates for the .Net Framework are doing so because they want the .Net Framework's functionality on their machine.
The .Net Framework includes 'Click Once'. Click Once is deployment/installation tool that is supposed to make .Net stuff 'just work'. You can 'Click Once' from your web browser and have the application installed on your machine and working. Simple. Easy.
Microsoft included it for the BENEFIT of FireFox users. If you use FireFox and don't want the Click Once deployment functionality installed on your machine, you'd think people would avoid installing it on their machine?
When MS doesn't make their new toys (Click Once) play nice with other browsers, people attack them. When MS develops an add-on that adds desirable functionality to a competitors browser - again, people get upset.
Removing it is a trivial task for anyone who knows enough to care.
I dunno, personally, I don't see the problem. 'OMFG - I installed the .Net Framework on my machine and it added stuff that makes the .Net Framework work on my machine!!! I h4te Micro$uck!'
If FireFox wants to break support for ClickOnce in their browser, I'm sure they could. But then you are back to the days of IE6. 'Okay Users, we need to run this app on our local intranet. It uses ClickOnce - so you need to run IE and go to \\xyz\ourapp to run it. Don't use anything but IE though, because this only works with IE'.
Yeah - they had this back when I was in high school.
Only, instead of a prize; I got an F in my programming class, threats of expulsion, and had to promise never to use one of the "school's" computers again.
Maybe I'm missing something?
I thought Chris Pine was the actor playing James T. Kirk. He was born in 1980. That means he's pushing 30.
If he's still prepubescent he should probably see an endocrinologist.
"Ubuntu = Linux
Linux != Ubuntu"
^^^ Good point. But I fail to see what that has to do with my post?
Ubuntu is a particular flavor of Linux. Much like a pitbull is a particular type of dog.
If your pitbull did something that was typical of dogs in general; it would be perfectly acceptable to say so. Example: "Yup, dogs sure love bacon"
The only time I said 'Linux' in my post, I was referring to misleading information presented by Linux fans/users (that includes, but is not limited to, Ubuntu fans/users). Linux's strengths are often oversold (and that includes software you'd typically expect to use on Linux. Open Office, for example. I was told, countless times, that it would do 'Everything Office does' - until I installed it, had problems, and returned to the forums to *then* discover, it had a long list of short comings. You can find old articles about Linux from 2000 saying how greatly improved it is and how it's ready for the average home user. Then, in 2001 saying how, in the past, hardware support sucked and it was only for geeks, BUT NOW, it's ready for the average home user. You can find that same article, every year, for the past 10 years).
You are certainly free to disagree with my statement that Linux is often over-hyped by the Linux community, but I used the terms correctly.
It's Linux B.S.
They are saying it is 'Slick' as in 'responsive'. They are NOT saying that it is 'pretty', but they want people to think that.
If you posted up screens or vids of the interface in Windows 7, OS X....and then Ubuntu; Ubuntu would be the least attractive, least pretty, least 'slick'.
But it's responsive.
In my area, it wouldn't matter.
They do 'packages' that keep your prices the same no matter what. If you buy just basic cable TV, the price is $40 dollars a month; but add on internet and it's $50 a month.
If you just want internet it's $44.95 a month.
It turns out, at least out here, if you are paying for the internet - all you need to do to get the basic cable tv channels is pry open the cable box on the side of your house and remove their 'filter' that blocks out the range of the TV channels.
So, given that people can easily remove the filter, and given that - with the internet - people can watch all the TV they want; the cable company has made it so that, either way - you're paying ~$50 dollars.
Setting the online status should not be illegal.
But it should be evidence in court of law; as it speaks to his mental state.
If I post on Facebook saying that my mood is 'homicidal', that might be 'creepy' but not criminal. But if I KILL SOMEONE THAT DAY; it's certainly evidence to suggest that my claim of self-defense might be crap - because I was feeling 'homicidal' that day and wanted to kill someone.
Likewise - if this guy is feeling 'devious' and then arrests someone that day; well, that's certainly evidence to support to claim that the cop did something DEVIOUS in the arrest. Since he broadcast to the entire world how he feels.
Personally, any cop who feels the need to act like an e-hardass on Facebook is too immature to have a job as a cop. So, I'd like to see this guy fired.
I don't know the specifics of your particular case but...
In my experience it is rare to actually get a Windows CD when you buy a laptop or desktop. I don't think I've ever had that happen (not saying it doesn't happen, just haven't seen it myself).
I always ended up with a 'System Restore' of some sort, branded by the particular manufacture.
But yeah - it sounds like someone else had a copy of your key, particularly with a laptop (they typically don't have major hardware reconfigurations) and particularly because you said it happened 'every time' you went to install Windows, and not just every time, after a major update to your hardware.
I'd say that, realistically, you probably shouldn't take a single, extreme, bad experience and apply it to a larger, broader situation. For example, you say you can install linux in 20 minutes....and maybe you can; but in my last attempt to install Linux the thing was a total POS and didn't detect any of my hardware.
That's not a reason to abandon the concept of Linux, that's a reason to improve the issues that are a problem in Linux.
Likewise, in your situation, it's not a reason to abandon WGA (which servers a valid and useful purpose); it's a reason to improve WGA so that less legit, paying, customers have to have negative experiences like yours.
I don't see what the problem with it is....?
In the last 10 years of upgrading, downgrading, swapping in and swapping out; I've only ever had Windows complain once. And it was, literally, the easiest phone call I've ever had to get it fixed. I was on the phone for less than 3 minutes which is amazing. Maybe things have changed in the last five years? I dunno.
I do know that I've upgraded my CPU, my RAM, my Video card, added a sound card, added a RAID controller, removed a RAID controller, removed a CD-ROM, added a DVD burner and my legit copy of Vista Ultimate never got angry or did anything wrong.
If you *don't* authenticate your copy of Windows - all that happens is that you can't install particular updates and you get nag-ware. It remains functional.
I'm the first to complain about ridiculous methods companies make legit users go through to use their products (like requiring the DVD be in the drive - drives me crazy). But, I don't have a problem with the Windows Activation.
Vista requires an internet connection. It's right on the box and on the website. In this day and age, it's reasonable to require internet access. For 99% of people who buy Vista (probably more like 99.999%) this is a non-issue.
Activation is painless, it takes, literally seconds. And then it's done.
Maybe I'm missing something; but I don't see any reason to get my panties in a wad over this.
Besides that, there is a lot more continued development to an OS like Vista than to the crappy game I'm trying to play that demands the CD be in the drive. And, without that CD - the game won't play. Without activating Windows - it just nags me a bit. Activating let's you get all of the Service packs and updates and what not, good things to have.
It just doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.
The only thing I've learned from this whole economic mess is that throwing money at problems doesn't fix them.
It prolongs them.
If inflated house prices result in a crash - giving money to people buy houses and artificially keep the price higher; is only going to keep the crash going longer, albeit more slowly.
Giving money to car companies who suck are only going to encourage them to continue to suck. Sucking is now a viable business model.
Do you all remember back when everyone was saying how Netscape was doomed to fail because MS was a monopoloy!!!! Remember that? Here's the truth, Netscape sucked. When FireFox came around, MS still had the same level of control - IE was still free, IE was still included with the OS.
But FireFox didn't suck - so people used it.
In areas where open source doesn't suck - people use it (servers, mostly). Areas where it does suck - people don't (Desktop).
Devoting money to 'open source' is silly because it's forcing tax payers to 'buy' crappy software. If it worked, as was great, people would use it, people would even pay for it, voluntarily.
And, in the extreme situation, where the influx of money makes open source more viable - once the government stops throwing money at it, and open source is more robust, stable, and performant than closed source software - congrats; you've just displaced an entire industry of software developers.
And because of the nature of open source software - now that you aren't funding it with tax dollars - it doesn't get funded. It's all open. Everyone has at it. Not just the US - any country that wants it. You've just paid the development costs for China's new web servers while putting Joe Blow the local software developer out of business.
Windows Vista - 10 minutes
Windows 7 - 8 minutes
Ubuntu - 8 days
Oh dear god....
Looks like someone took an Intro to Philosophy at their university and wants the world to know just how 'deep' they are.
I bet you didn't even get an A in the class.
You can sit around for *years* and debate whether or not Slashdot exits, or if it is simply a construct of your imagination. And you can go on and on, at great length; trying to determine whether you can determine *anything* because, everything, as you said, that you can perceive is from your own reference point. How can 'real' be defined.
The same old, tired, arguments for and against these have been tossed around for, hundreds and hundreds of years. Probably longer.
Pointing them out, in unrelated contexts...like a Slashdot discussion of Microsoft software patch makes you look like a fresh out of Phil101 college d-bag who plays hacky-sack in the quad after lunch and before BIO 102.
Next you'll point out how maybe the colors you see are like...ya know...different from what other people and that perception is all relative. WHOA!
But yeah, the whole 'Like, dude, it's really just a symbol! That's all it is, just a symbol' crap is really a stretch.
Yes, of course, it's a symbol. Symbols are used extensively by people. It makes communication easier. Is it easier to define a large company like MSFT by saying, 'Microsoft' or 'the company responsible for the creation of Windows, Office, .Net, Visual Studio, etc, etc, etc...' or perhaps a complete list of employees start and end dates would make you happier?
Of course it's a symbol. Duh.
Pointing it out adds nothing to the conversation. Nothing. And feeling the need to point it out means that you think you are a LOT more clever than you really are.
That's crazy!
So like, you could have 'hackers' hacking the virtual simulation created by enslave their minds?!
And maybe the only way to keep us from knowing it's a simulation is to give us some amount of choice, in the form of a left over sum at the end of a long calculation. A single person would be created to contain that choice.
We'd call him...'The one'. Only, he wouldn't know that he was the one, but oddly enough, would choose the name of 'Neo' for himself.
The rules of the simulation would not apply to Neo.
Wait a second....
I like PasswordSafe but that sucker sure is buggy for me. I seems to go crazy when I use Remote Desktop and then try to access it in my system tray.
Also, keeping it running in the system try for several days seems to make it go crazy and not refresh itself.
Other's have blogged about it, but PasswordSafe (or something like it) along with DropBox makes for a pretty complete solution.
I *HATE* when Linux fans say crap like this.
Here's the deal with Linux, it's hardware support is *always* behind the times. Hardware developers don't support Linux, so when something new comes out, it is sold in the store, with a CD/DVD that contains Windows drivers.
When I buy a new piece of hardware - DO NOT TELL ME WINDOWS DOESN'T SUPPORT IT IF THE DISK THAT COMES WITH IT INCLUDES THE WINDOWS DRIVER.
That's retarded.
And last I checked, 100% of everything sold at a store like BestBuy or Circuit City includes drivers for Windows.
The only exception would be Mac-only hardware that is clearly labeled as such.
When wireless USB network adapters first came out - it was BLOODY NIGHTMARE to get Linux to support it. It's *STILL* a bloody nightmare.
In Linux, I'm happy if I can connect to the net AT ALL with my hardware - last time I did it, I had to use a hacked emulator that used Window's drivers and added overhead. AND it didn't support encryption AND it wouldn't run anywhere near the Wireless-N speed I get in Windows.
I've had that thing for years now, and I can find a few websites and forums that have detailed steps on how to try and hack it to work.
And, whatever the newest hardware is, you'll always have the same problem.
If I go out and buy a new Blu-ray burner from BestBuy, today - without any research at all - I'm 100% certain I can buy one that will run in Windows without any trouble.
Can you say the same of Linux? Heck no. You can't.
If I backup my software documents along with the software applications that read them - problem solved.
All I need then is a computer or emulator that can run whatever os is required by the system.
Not a problem as far as I'm concerned.
Blizzard *doesn't* care at all about Linux users. They care about $$$.
Blizzard offers no official support Linux. Getting WoW to run in Linux is a nightmare...and Blizzard has enough problems supporting their Windows Users.
Are you salaried or not?
If you are salaried and you establish 'work hours' then life is good. From 8am until 5pm you are 'working' and you need to be able to answer e-mails and phone calls. No problems.
What you want to avoid is doing remote contract work where you have to bill hourly. You are told to do X at 8am in the morning and after a few hours of development you realize that you need clarification on X. So you send an e-mail/make a phone call...and you get no answer. It's not until the next day that you get your answer.
So from 10am until 8am the next business day you were unable to do any work. You can really only bill for two hours though, because you were 'waiting' for the rest.
Seriously - the next time you are about to post a rant about how great Linux is and how it's been 'ready for the desktop' for years now, and how it does everything you could ever want....
Remember that crap as simple as Flash doesn't work for crap.
Linux....just as broken and behind the times as it's ever been - but hey, it's free!
What's the big deal?
They've been able to do this since the 50s. Right now, there are LOTS of different drugs you can take that, with no change in your exercise or diet regime will make you stronger and leaner.