And there's supporting a monopoly of mediocre software. There's that too. And clearly activation isn't "trivial" to several of the people around you in this discussion.
It's important to some of the people here because they're idealistic, thinking they're making a point by not giving in to Microsoft. Problem is that most people just don't care - they want to do their jobs, running the software that performs the necessary tasks, and if that requires Windows, then so be it.
Since there's more to life than some issue with a computer operating system, I can't get hyped over such matters. Particularly when it's not a big deal - activation is as simple as doing it seamlessly over the net or calling a number. 10-15 minutes is all it takes if done over the phone, apparently. It would be NICE if Microsoft gave up on the activation business, but hey, it's the path of least resistance, much less effort than actually moving to another system. That's the point I'm trying to make.
It's also possible to get away without learning anything with osx or a modern linux, you can get by using the gui for most things... In all cases, the CLI is there for those who want it and know how to use it.
And in all cases, if something breaks badly or you want to do something less mainstream, you are often forced to revert to the CLI (or registry hacking, which is actually more complicated than editing a commented text file) to get what you need done.
I both agree and disagree. The thing is that with Windows, the entire system was built around using the GUI and clicking on things. The CLI has a far lower priority when doing things - it's all buttons and menus. With Linux, the command line came first and THEN a clicky GUI was written to support it. In other words, with Windows, the GUI is considered a priority with the command line a distant second, but with Linux it's the other way around, and only slowly starting to gain maturity. The result of this is that in Linux, in order to have any level of power and configuration ability, the command line must be dealt with, otherwise you're basically skimming the power of the operating system.
That's not to say a command line is a lame way to use a system - far from it. But there's something nice about opening a configuration window with all the options laid out in front of you, so you know what's what, instead of having to read a man page with the specific option you seek buried somewhere.
I suppose that's fair enough, particularly as a software engineer. I happen to like Linux too, but it just has too many issues and not enough benefits for me to convert... for now, and on this hardware. Who knows what will happen in a year's time. It's just from my perspective as a simple desktop user though, and solely my opinion obviously.
Thanks for not being one of those annoying zealots that I see so often here or on the Ubuntu forums.:)
I think it's a question of effort vs rate of return. Instead of learning about 'how' to use an operating system, wouldn't it be better to actually 'use' the operating system? The operating system is there to run programs after all - spending so much time learning a new system to perform the same tasks as the one before it seems like a waste of time... unless of course one actually hates Windows/Microsoft so much that the change is more desirable than sticking with what you already know. Otherwise I fail to see the benefit of moving for this little tiny thing which is XP activation. But that's just me.
Fill disclosure - I use Vista and actually LIKE Vista. I chose it specifically because it suits my needs more so than Linux, so if you wish to disregard my opinions based on this fact, and the fact I do not subscribe to the typical Slashdot groupthink, I'm fine with that.:)
Let me put it another way. Why give up a system where you can fly across the GUI, knowing precisely where everything is and have become totally accustomed to doing things quickly because of this knowledge, to another system where you basically have to relearn a large portion, JUST because of something trivial as the activation of XP?
Now in a work environment, of course you're not going to resort to a pirated copy. But then again, most businesses are prepared to pony up the cash for a site license, and Microsoft takes care of businesses with the corporate versions which do not require activation in the first place. Microsoft aren't stupid in this regard. Since the businesses keep using Windows, there's nothing lost with the home user getting the pirated copy.
Why? It's easier to get a pirated copy and continue using the same knowledge set of skills, techniques and software than it is to totally convert to another operating system.
There's a reason XP is still pretty popular on the torrent sites.
With web crackdowns like this becoming more and more frequent do you think we will start to see similar (overt) activities from US and European governments?
Have a power strip with a maximum of 3 or 4 chargers plugged into it at any given time. All remaining chargers are stored in a drawer or another appropriate container. I would be surprised if all the devices need charging at once, as some gadgets would be used more than others.
So you'll have to swap out chargers once in a while, big deal. It's cleaner this way.
I feel your pain, cos when I was running a desktop machine with an NVIDIA card I had problems of my own (eg. standby not resuming properly, occasional glitches, etc). However, what pisses me off is when people assume that open-source drivers such as the Intel drivers are somehow better. Shit, the Intel graphics drivers in Linux don't properly support all the GL extensions that the Windows drivers so, there's a documented but as of yet unfixed issue with the gamma levels when using XV for video playback, I've had a total lockup when switching from Compiz to metacity, playing a 3D game and turning Compiz back on, etc.
My point is that open source graphics drivers haven't shown much of an improvement (for me), apart from the advantage of them working out of the box in Ubuntu. I'd much rather take the proprietary drivers with superior support and quality, for the most part, if no alternative exists. It'd be lovely to have the NVIDIA drivers open sourced, but until they do, I'm hardly going to avoid them if they provide a superior experience.
NVIDIA's proprietary hardware is what's capable of playing the games I want to play at the frame rate and quality I want.
For goodness sake already, why won't people stop being so ideological and just USE the damn hardware if it works better than the alternative. Pick what you need from a practical viewpoint, NOT on ideology. Life's not worth wasting one's efforts of the ideology of a fucking graphics chipset already!
Depends what you mean by a normal laptop. For example, I've got a Toshiba Satellite Pro with a Core2Duo 1.66 GHz, 2 GB RAM and a 250 GB HDD. I'm run both Vista Business and Ubuntu 8.04 on this thing and noticed the following:
* Both systems support standby/hibernation properly, but Vista is quicker to resume from either mode. Ubuntu does hibernate quicker though.
* Vista actually lasts longer on battery than Ubuntu. I don't have values, merely observations based on the same kind of work (eg. browsing, email, etc). Probably helps that Vista fully supports multiple power-saving features that either aren't enabled in Ubuntu or aren't up to the same level of maturity as in Windows.
* Ubuntu suffers from a "bug" whereby many hard drives will spin down after several seconds of non-use, which kinda reduces the lifespan Vista doesn't have this issue, although it's hard to determine if that's only because the drive is always flashing every so often.
* Both systems are zippy enough when configured well, although Vista takes absolutely forever to start from a cold boot which is why standby/hibernation is a must with it.
Because I much prefer the software selection and functionality of most Windows software compared to Linux variants, I'm sticking with Vista as my primary on this machine, but Linux is certainly getting better for laptops.
It's probably useful to note that now, whenever you go to download Ubuntu 8.04 from the official site, you're actually downloading the refreshed ISO known as 8.04.1. This ISO has all the updates up to the beginning of July, which means it also has the final release of Firefox 3, a much better working PulseAudio and many other fixes out-of-the-box. From this point of view, the LTS is now much more polished if someone uses the refreshed ISO.
How does MS ass-rape me daily? Do you even understand what you're talking about?
And why would I care about old hardware? I'm running Vista on a new(ish) laptop, works perfectly fine. Doesn't sound like I'm acting special - sounds more like I'm prepared to spend money to avoid the time wasted getting Linux up to the functional standard that I'm used to in Windows.
There's a reason I stick wire Windows - I'm tired of being treated second-class by developers and manufacturers when it comes to software and hardware. Since I don't have time to wait for things to change, I don't really give a fuck what users of non-MS systems think.
This sounds more like a manufacturer who can't properly develop drivers for their hardware. It's up to them to support Vista, not for Microsoft to support their hardware.
Sure, the IDE/SATA Controller drivers supplied with Vista won't work well with SSD technology. So guess what? Drive manufacturers should make their own drivers to control their own hardware. This is just flaming.
That's such a loaded and flamebait-ridden summary it's not even funny. Linux has plenty of usability issues, just like Windows - the quirks are just in different places.
Still, assuming the email is real of course, it's always nice to see the boss appreciate the problems from the regular user's perspective.
Is the next version of Office going to flood a user's room with a deadly neurotoxin for using ODFs? That'll certainly be one way to dampen uptake of the format. Shit MS is clever aren't they! I'm making a note here, huge success.
Vista changed this. In Vista, any new networks are not automatically connected to unless they were in the past and have been set to automatically connect. By default, Vista will flash the networking icon and report "Wireless networks are available", but doesn't auto-connect anymore.
Of course everyone hates Vista without actually using it, so it doesn't matter, right?:)
Slashdot Mirror
FUCK YOU!
I both agree and disagree. The thing is that with Windows, the entire system was built around using the GUI and clicking on things. The CLI has a far lower priority when doing things - it's all buttons and menus. With Linux, the command line came first and THEN a clicky GUI was written to support it. In other words, with Windows, the GUI is considered a priority with the command line a distant second, but with Linux it's the other way around, and only slowly starting to gain maturity. The result of this is that in Linux, in order to have any level of power and configuration ability, the command line must be dealt with, otherwise you're basically skimming the power of the operating system.
That's not to say a command line is a lame way to use a system - far from it. But there's something nice about opening a configuration window with all the options laid out in front of you, so you know what's what, instead of having to read a man page with the specific option you seek buried somewhere.
I suppose that's fair enough, particularly as a software engineer. I happen to like Linux too, but it just has too many issues and not enough benefits for me to convert... for now, and on this hardware. Who knows what will happen in a year's time. It's just from my perspective as a simple desktop user though, and solely my opinion obviously.
Thanks for not being one of those annoying zealots that I see so often here or on the Ubuntu forums. :)
I think it's a question of effort vs rate of return. Instead of learning about 'how' to use an operating system, wouldn't it be better to actually 'use' the operating system? The operating system is there to run programs after all - spending so much time learning a new system to perform the same tasks as the one before it seems like a waste of time... unless of course one actually hates Windows/Microsoft so much that the change is more desirable than sticking with what you already know. Otherwise I fail to see the benefit of moving for this little tiny thing which is XP activation. But that's just me.
Fill disclosure - I use Vista and actually LIKE Vista. I chose it specifically because it suits my needs more so than Linux, so if you wish to disregard my opinions based on this fact, and the fact I do not subscribe to the typical Slashdot groupthink, I'm fine with that. :)
Let me put it another way. Why give up a system where you can fly across the GUI, knowing precisely where everything is and have become totally accustomed to doing things quickly because of this knowledge, to another system where you basically have to relearn a large portion, JUST because of something trivial as the activation of XP?
Now in a work environment, of course you're not going to resort to a pirated copy. But then again, most businesses are prepared to pony up the cash for a site license, and Microsoft takes care of businesses with the corporate versions which do not require activation in the first place. Microsoft aren't stupid in this regard. Since the businesses keep using Windows, there's nothing lost with the home user getting the pirated copy.
Why? It's easier to get a pirated copy and continue using the same knowledge set of skills, techniques and software than it is to totally convert to another operating system.
There's a reason XP is still pretty popular on the torrent sites.
Ideally? Get rid of DRM. It NEVER benefits the consumer, and the pirate copies have it removed anyway.
If you HAVE to use DRM because the old farts who run these companies insist on it, have the game hosted on something like Steam or GameTap.
If you do decide to go the Steam route, don't incorporate further DRM on top of the Steam version of the game (I'm looking at you, BioShock).
So long as the ISPs don't warm up the neurotoxin emitters, we'll be fine.
Yes. A simple answer for an obvious question.
Per side perhaps?
Slashdot editors are idiots, we already know that. Nitpicking is a hollow sport.
Have a power strip with a maximum of 3 or 4 chargers plugged into it at any given time. All remaining chargers are stored in a drawer or another appropriate container. I would be surprised if all the devices need charging at once, as some gadgets would be used more than others.
So you'll have to swap out chargers once in a while, big deal. It's cleaner this way.
Quake 4 would teleport your rockets in the same manner. I thought it was pretty neat - didn't know DN3D had done it a decade ago. :)
I feel your pain, cos when I was running a desktop machine with an NVIDIA card I had problems of my own (eg. standby not resuming properly, occasional glitches, etc). However, what pisses me off is when people assume that open-source drivers such as the Intel drivers are somehow better. Shit, the Intel graphics drivers in Linux don't properly support all the GL extensions that the Windows drivers so, there's a documented but as of yet unfixed issue with the gamma levels when using XV for video playback, I've had a total lockup when switching from Compiz to metacity, playing a 3D game and turning Compiz back on, etc.
My point is that open source graphics drivers haven't shown much of an improvement (for me), apart from the advantage of them working out of the box in Ubuntu. I'd much rather take the proprietary drivers with superior support and quality, for the most part, if no alternative exists. It'd be lovely to have the NVIDIA drivers open sourced, but until they do, I'm hardly going to avoid them if they provide a superior experience.
NVIDIA's proprietary hardware is what's capable of playing the games I want to play at the frame rate and quality I want.
For goodness sake already, why won't people stop being so ideological and just USE the damn hardware if it works better than the alternative. Pick what you need from a practical viewpoint, NOT on ideology. Life's not worth wasting one's efforts of the ideology of a fucking graphics chipset already!
Depends what you mean by a normal laptop. For example, I've got a Toshiba Satellite Pro with a Core2Duo 1.66 GHz, 2 GB RAM and a 250 GB HDD. I'm run both Vista Business and Ubuntu 8.04 on this thing and noticed the following:
* Both systems support standby/hibernation properly, but Vista is quicker to resume from either mode. Ubuntu does hibernate quicker though.
* Vista actually lasts longer on battery than Ubuntu. I don't have values, merely observations based on the same kind of work (eg. browsing, email, etc). Probably helps that Vista fully supports multiple power-saving features that either aren't enabled in Ubuntu or aren't up to the same level of maturity as in Windows.
* Ubuntu suffers from a "bug" whereby many hard drives will spin down after several seconds of non-use, which kinda reduces the lifespan Vista doesn't have this issue, although it's hard to determine if that's only because the drive is always flashing every so often.
* Both systems are zippy enough when configured well, although Vista takes absolutely forever to start from a cold boot which is why standby/hibernation is a must with it.
Because I much prefer the software selection and functionality of most Windows software compared to Linux variants, I'm sticking with Vista as my primary on this machine, but Linux is certainly getting better for laptops.
On Tekzilla:
http://revision3.com/tekzilla/newtime/
Can't remember where exactly in the episode, but it's there, and there's some good footage of various pieces of tech all wet and still running.
It's probably useful to note that now, whenever you go to download Ubuntu 8.04 from the official site, you're actually downloading the refreshed ISO known as 8.04.1. This ISO has all the updates up to the beginning of July, which means it also has the final release of Firefox 3, a much better working PulseAudio and many other fixes out-of-the-box. From this point of view, the LTS is now much more polished if someone uses the refreshed ISO.
How does MS ass-rape me daily? Do you even understand what you're talking about?
And why would I care about old hardware? I'm running Vista on a new(ish) laptop, works perfectly fine. Doesn't sound like I'm acting special - sounds more like I'm prepared to spend money to avoid the time wasted getting Linux up to the functional standard that I'm used to in Windows.
That's nice.
There's a reason I stick wire Windows - I'm tired of being treated second-class by developers and manufacturers when it comes to software and hardware. Since I don't have time to wait for things to change, I don't really give a fuck what users of non-MS systems think.
This sounds more like a manufacturer who can't properly develop drivers for their hardware. It's up to them to support Vista, not for Microsoft to support their hardware.
Sure, the IDE/SATA Controller drivers supplied with Vista won't work well with SSD technology. So guess what? Drive manufacturers should make their own drivers to control their own hardware. This is just flaming.
Since Ubisoft used the crack (presumably) without permission, does this mean RELOADED can sue Ubisoft for copy protection infringement now?
That's such a loaded and flamebait-ridden summary it's not even funny. Linux has plenty of usability issues, just like Windows - the quirks are just in different places.
Still, assuming the email is real of course, it's always nice to see the boss appreciate the problems from the regular user's perspective.
What are you trying to say?
Is the next version of Office going to flood a user's room with a deadly neurotoxin for using ODFs? That'll certainly be one way to dampen uptake of the format. Shit MS is clever aren't they! I'm making a note here, huge success.
Vista changed this. In Vista, any new networks are not automatically connected to unless they were in the past and have been set to automatically connect. By default, Vista will flash the networking icon and report "Wireless networks are available", but doesn't auto-connect anymore.
:)
Of course everyone hates Vista without actually using it, so it doesn't matter, right?