I went Vista > Linux > Win 7 for exactly the same reason.
Spending two years in Linux simply reaffirmed the fact that it isn't ready for the desktop yet (and by now it should be clear that it probably never will be, unless some major paradigm shifts).
"The things Windows can do" are things that pretty much every OS+UI been able to do for damn near twenty years.
You obviously haven't been paying attention to computers over the last 20 years, because that is categoricly false.
He's also not directly talking about Linux itself there. Among the things "Windows can do" is run Windows only programs. There are a lot of them, and they often have no Linux alternative. Sure you've got office software, but GIMP is a joke compared to Photoshop and Corell Draw (yeah, you can do the same stuff, but it isn't exactly easy). Whylinuxisbetter.net even says not to bother if you are in the book publishing industry or like video games. The fact is you can forget Linux for the end user in almost all major industries that require specialized applications.
These are the biggest problems with Linux. As hard as Linux is to use (and quit kidding yourself, it's significantly harder than Windows), it's a secondary problem. The primary problem is that the things people want to use their computers for simply are not available in Linux. People who are willing to pay for a program are not going to want to switch to an inferior product just because it is free. That's something Linux advocates need to figure out.
I don't know how to fix it, honestly, but that's the real problem with Linux. It doesn't really have anything to do with Linux itself at all. It's basically the same problem Macs have, though Macs have it better than Linux.
Does that mean there aren't cheaper or more comprehensive options available? No, but that actually accentuates the problem with Linux not having any such options (unless you paid for your red hat or canonical server, that is). Hell the computer OEMs all have their own support as well.
Admittedly I have never really dived into Windows documentation, but the "trouble shooting" wizards have never been helpful for me.
The documentation available for free online is extensive and complete. Usually when I search for info on a Microsoft problem I find the answer in MS's documentation. The "help" guides on the machine vary from very good to next to useless. It's like reading a friggin man page.
As recently as last year.... So one year ago (it's November). That's at least two versions back, maybe three. You should try it again.
You realize the feature he is complaining about has been in Windows for over a decade, right?
Some advanced OS you've got there.
This illustrates the problem with Linux. The stuff programmers care about are not the same things end users care about. Linux is made for programmers. Why the hell do you think Linux gets more penetration in markets that require more programming? Desktop market, most people don't program so most people have no use for Linux. Server market, lots of programmers, but not everyone is a programmer nor wants to be, about 50% penetration. Supercomputers? You've got to custom build the whole damn thing to do what you want anyway, why wouldn't you pick Linux? 90% penetration.
Programmers are trying to write programs for users with Ubuntu (and others), but they suck at it, so we get nowhere.
For the record, I want to love Linux, I really do. It just sucks more at everything I want to do with it than Windows does.
Most of the things on that list apply just as much to Windows as they do to Linux, some of them are misleading, and a few are just plain stupid.
For example, the following describe Windows 7 as well or better than they do Linux:
Protecting your computer, free software, next-gen desktops (I'm sorry, Compiz or no Windows definitely wins here), customizing desktops, free support, workspaces, clean start menu (really, linux start menus are only clean because they have nothing in them!), restarting the computer, free games, instant messaging apps, music player (really, there are a dozen players in Windows that are better than anything in Linux, all free of course), and weather (I can't believe they actually had this in the list).
The following items in the list are utter bullshit, and have nothing to do with Windows or Linux:
Freedom (seriously, if MS goes away in 10 years we'll switch to Macs), Drivers (you don't have to worry about them, because if they aren't already there you're shit out of luck!), New software (try installing anything not in your distro's repository - nightmare!), protect the environment (really? lamest argument I've ever heard), no back doors (complete bullshit), don't have to wait years for problems to be resolved (again, bullshit), help other countries (it's called international trade, assholes).
Out of that, I've found just a few actual benefits, which I can fully agree with from my own experience using linux:
Lack of viruses - there are a number of reasons for it, but it's definitely a big plus Stability - Windows hasn't been as bad as Linux fanboys wish for almost 10 years now, but Linux still wins by an ever shrinking margin IMO Up-front cost - a benefit, but often dwarfed by lost time working with the system. Not a big plus. Update all software at once - this is one truly nice feature I can get behind Works well on old computers - depends heavily on the distro, but a bonus (also irrelevant to most people)
Unfortunately, these benefits are utterly dwarfed by the four reasons they give not to switch to Linux, and they leave out some major ones as well:
The four they give (proprietary software, gamer, book/publishing industry, incompatible hardware) covers probably 50-60% of the market. Computer illiteracy covers the other 30-40%.
I've been messing around with Linux (not using it regularly for more than a year or two at a time, mind you) for a decade and a half. I honestly cannot see anything like Ubuntu ever making a serious impact in the desktop market for exactly the reasons whylinuxisbetter.com stated you should not switch to Linux. You can make up all the bullshit benefits you want, but they all relate to using the operating system, and most of them are either not true or not relevant. We have computers to run programs, and if it can't run the programs it can't be successful. Linux can't run the programs the desktop market wants. End of story.
Laptop batteries pack the same amount of energy as a grenade, and require no pre-flight modification to make them explosive.
Are we going to ban them, or not?
Further to that, there are plenty of components in a modern laptop that can be used to hold explosives which can easily fool visual and X-ray inspection. Hell a fucking portable hard drive practically looks like a bomb under X-ray, yet they go through just fine.
It's all completely useless, and is the wrong way to go about security.
Well, at least to the credit of those trying to protect air travel
There's a very old saying:
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
TSA has been the source of more fear and harassment in this country than any terrorist ever has been able to accomplish.
Now all the terrorists have to do is come up with some new plot and try to pull it off. They don't even have to be successful, just as long as they are caught they can crank up the level of harassment to Americans everywhere.
I don't give the assholes trying to protect air travel credit for shit. Allow guns on airplanes and you can bet your ass there won't be any more hijacking attempts. Of course, it's not a perfect solution, since you still have the occasional suicidal maniac who wants to go down in a blaze of glory, but some sacrifices must be made for our security.;)
The problem is they'll just make a book bomb next.
We need to catch explosives, not whatever container they may be in.
I'm amazed they didn't ban underwear after the underwear bomber incident. Seriously, his only failure there was the malfunction of his bomb, his execution was perfect (even though he was on a dozen international watch-lists already, but hey! who cares about that right?).
This reactionary approach does absolutely nothing for our security. Not one thing.
Owing to the fact that it's impossible to test all combinations of devices and planes, under all circumstances and actually know what might/could happen -- they've chosen to ban the whole thing.
That's the dumbest line of reasoning I have ever heard of, but I don't doubt that it's true.
A much saner approach would be to require better shielding on the airplane's components.
Honestly, I don't know the make and model of every car on the market, but that doesn't stop me from crossing the street.
That won't do shit, the airlines have no say in what TSA does.
Those are your tax dollars at work, bending you over and shoving TSA security up your ass every time you fly. The airlines have been in worse shape than ever since TSA ramped up their security theater, yet they haven't managed to do anything to stop it.
Regarding the box cutters, my buddy accidentally smuggled one through security at least a half-dozen times before he realized it was in the bottom of his carry-on luggage. This was a couple years ago, after all the heightened security.
Way to go TSA! Can't even get the fucking weapon that started this whole mess, but by golly do I feel secure now!
Why the fuck would a pilot need co-conspirators to hijack a plane when he sits in a locked room and has complete control of the aircraft?
What a pilot can do with a knife or a bomb is absolutely meaningless compared to what he can do without one. The idea of physically screening pilots when they are in such a position of trust is stupid. Just stupid. Just verify his ID and badge and send him on through. He can already kill everyone on board and thousands of other people if he wants to without a damn box cutter, so why the hell would he bring one?
I don't know if you know this, but people of like backgrounds and upbringing tend to group together.
Black people have mostly black friends, white people have mostly white friends, yellow people have mostly yellow friends, christians have mostly christian friends, atheists have mostly atheist friends, and muslims have mostly muslim friends.
It is far, far more likely that a muslim of middle-eastern descent is going to know a muslim jihadist of middle eastern descent than any other group in the world.
So yeah, "young middle easterners" tend to be buddies and tend to know the other young middle easterners who live around them. Just like white christians tend to be buddies and tend to know the other white christians who live around them. It is within these groups that extreme positions are found, like "kill all infidels" or "gays are evil".
As far as I am aware, the federal budget has never been cut in the entire history of the US of A. G.W. Bush caught hell for just trying to reduce the increase in the budget.
Historically, whenever someone gains political office things change. They may have every intention of following through, but it never seems to happen unless there is a huge price tag that can be attached to it.
I'd really like to see a few people with balls in there hold the line and force the issue of cutting the budget. It is so full of useless pork it's ridiculous and completely unnecessary. If a community cannot afford some big spending project and cannot otherwise raise the money for it, then they certainly do not need it and can do without. This goes for all levels of community. The government should be working within its means (which is us), it should not be borrowing from itself, and it should not be borrowing from other countries.
What do you do when there is increased risk? You mitigate it.
The trouble is we aren't mitigating anything.
About two years ago a former coworker of mine accidentally carried a box cutter that had a blade almost an inch thick that could extend out to 4" (it was a serious box cutter) in his carry-on luggage about six times. Eventually, when looking through his bag, he realized the box cutter was in there and removed it. This was through different screeners just about every time, so it wasn't one person fucking up. None of the TSA's "highly trained screeners" could see the box cutter.
This was seven years after 9/11 and TSA missed the weapon used in the 9/11 hijackings six times from one person. Think about that. You also have all those dateline specials and whatnot where they were able to sneak shit on pretty much whenever they pleased. What good are all the insane security measures if they can't even manage to catch the original weapon? Fuck they guy with the box cutter, the guy with the fingernail clippers is by far the greatest threat on the plane, obviously! It must be so, since it is the only thing these screeners seem to be able to catch.
That is why every time some new measure from the TSA comes out I just roll my eyes and say "fuck me". I have to fly regularly for my job, and it's a real pain in the ass for a demonstrable lack of improvement in security. If my buddy could do it six times accidentally, you can bet your ass terrorists can do it intentionally whenever they want.
What else do you suppose they could manage to sneak on board a plane?
Really, this reactive crap is useless. Instead of banning everything after it is snuck through security, how about we figure out how to spot the potential problems in the first place? Just because someone managed to sneak a bomb in through a printer cartridge doesn't mean you should ban printer cartridges. It means you should figure out how to spot bombs no matter what form they take.
I mean, seriously, are they going to ban books on planes as soon as a terrorist sneaks a pound of C-4 in the shape of a book on a plane? With our reactionary security measures, it could certainly happen.
How about instead we cut half the security personnel and hire a drug-sniffing dog? I bet it would be 100x more effective than the TSA is now. Save us some damn money and inconvenience too.
It's definitely Apple's problem. Skype could have been really awesome fixed the problem on their end, but that would not have solved the problem for the 200,000 other apps that can be launched this way.
First, Apple say this is an app issue, and app vendors need to fix it. They will dig their heals in and effectively say "screw you" to all their loyal customers.
Then, in the next iOS update (or the one after, if the next update is scheduled to be too soon) there will suddenly be a prompt for launching applications via registered URL handlers, possibly with some hype about how Apple is looking out for you, but not necessarily.
When confronted about the dichotomy between their two positions, Steve Jobs will simply reply "Apple is always concerned about the security of our customers, of course we would want to protect them from these kinds malicious attacks." All the while giving the reporter a befuddled look, as if to suggest the reporter is crazy for even asking such a stupid question.
Slashdot Mirror
I went Vista > Linux > Win 7 for exactly the same reason.
Spending two years in Linux simply reaffirmed the fact that it isn't ready for the desktop yet (and by now it should be clear that it probably never will be, unless some major paradigm shifts).
"The things Windows can do" are things that pretty much every OS+UI been able to do for damn near twenty years.
You obviously haven't been paying attention to computers over the last 20 years, because that is categoricly false.
He's also not directly talking about Linux itself there. Among the things "Windows can do" is run Windows only programs. There are a lot of them, and they often have no Linux alternative. Sure you've got office software, but GIMP is a joke compared to Photoshop and Corell Draw (yeah, you can do the same stuff, but it isn't exactly easy). Whylinuxisbetter.net even says not to bother if you are in the book publishing industry or like video games. The fact is you can forget Linux for the end user in almost all major industries that require specialized applications.
These are the biggest problems with Linux. As hard as Linux is to use (and quit kidding yourself, it's significantly harder than Windows), it's a secondary problem. The primary problem is that the things people want to use their computers for simply are not available in Linux. People who are willing to pay for a program are not going to want to switch to an inferior product just because it is free. That's something Linux advocates need to figure out.
I don't know how to fix it, honestly, but that's the real problem with Linux. It doesn't really have anything to do with Linux itself at all. It's basically the same problem Macs have, though Macs have it better than Linux.
Neither does the half of the world population who live on less than $3 per day.
If I could figure out how to do that I'd be rich as hell by now.
Pot, meet Kettle.
Can we all just agree to hate each other equally?
You obviously have no understanding of history.
And who is to do this? Can you call Microsoft to get help with your problems, without being IT head of a big company having big contracts?
Yes, you can.
Need the number?
Find it here: http://support.microsoft.com/selectassist
Does that mean there aren't cheaper or more comprehensive options available? No, but that actually accentuates the problem with Linux not having any such options (unless you paid for your red hat or canonical server, that is). Hell the computer OEMs all have their own support as well.
Admittedly I have never really dived into Windows documentation, but the "trouble shooting" wizards have never been helpful for me.
The documentation available for free online is extensive and complete. Usually when I search for info on a Microsoft problem I find the answer in MS's documentation. The "help" guides on the machine vary from very good to next to useless. It's like reading a friggin man page.
I'm tired of this not working.
Try Windows. I haven't a problem with dual monitors in years.
As recently as last year.... So one year ago (it's November). That's at least two versions back, maybe three. You should try it again.
You realize the feature he is complaining about has been in Windows for over a decade, right?
Some advanced OS you've got there.
This illustrates the problem with Linux. The stuff programmers care about are not the same things end users care about. Linux is made for programmers. Why the hell do you think Linux gets more penetration in markets that require more programming? Desktop market, most people don't program so most people have no use for Linux. Server market, lots of programmers, but not everyone is a programmer nor wants to be, about 50% penetration. Supercomputers? You've got to custom build the whole damn thing to do what you want anyway, why wouldn't you pick Linux? 90% penetration.
Programmers are trying to write programs for users with Ubuntu (and others), but they suck at it, so we get nowhere.
For the record, I want to love Linux, I really do. It just sucks more at everything I want to do with it than Windows does.
Most of the things on that list apply just as much to Windows as they do to Linux, some of them are misleading, and a few are just plain stupid.
For example, the following describe Windows 7 as well or better than they do Linux:
Protecting your computer, free software, next-gen desktops (I'm sorry, Compiz or no Windows definitely wins here), customizing desktops, free support, workspaces, clean start menu (really, linux start menus are only clean because they have nothing in them!), restarting the computer, free games, instant messaging apps, music player (really, there are a dozen players in Windows that are better than anything in Linux, all free of course), and weather (I can't believe they actually had this in the list).
The following items in the list are utter bullshit, and have nothing to do with Windows or Linux:
Freedom (seriously, if MS goes away in 10 years we'll switch to Macs), Drivers (you don't have to worry about them, because if they aren't already there you're shit out of luck!), New software (try installing anything not in your distro's repository - nightmare!), protect the environment (really? lamest argument I've ever heard), no back doors (complete bullshit), don't have to wait years for problems to be resolved (again, bullshit), help other countries (it's called international trade, assholes).
Out of that, I've found just a few actual benefits, which I can fully agree with from my own experience using linux:
Lack of viruses - there are a number of reasons for it, but it's definitely a big plus
Stability - Windows hasn't been as bad as Linux fanboys wish for almost 10 years now, but Linux still wins by an ever shrinking margin IMO
Up-front cost - a benefit, but often dwarfed by lost time working with the system. Not a big plus.
Update all software at once - this is one truly nice feature I can get behind
Works well on old computers - depends heavily on the distro, but a bonus (also irrelevant to most people)
Unfortunately, these benefits are utterly dwarfed by the four reasons they give not to switch to Linux, and they leave out some major ones as well:
The four they give (proprietary software, gamer, book/publishing industry, incompatible hardware) covers probably 50-60% of the market. Computer illiteracy covers the other 30-40%.
I've been messing around with Linux (not using it regularly for more than a year or two at a time, mind you) for a decade and a half. I honestly cannot see anything like Ubuntu ever making a serious impact in the desktop market for exactly the reasons whylinuxisbetter.com stated you should not switch to Linux. You can make up all the bullshit benefits you want, but they all relate to using the operating system, and most of them are either not true or not relevant. We have computers to run programs, and if it can't run the programs it can't be successful. Linux can't run the programs the desktop market wants. End of story.
Laptop batteries pack the same amount of energy as a grenade, and require no pre-flight modification to make them explosive.
Are we going to ban them, or not?
Further to that, there are plenty of components in a modern laptop that can be used to hold explosives which can easily fool visual and X-ray inspection. Hell a fucking portable hard drive practically looks like a bomb under X-ray, yet they go through just fine.
It's all completely useless, and is the wrong way to go about security.
You've totally missed the point.
Well, at least to the credit of those trying to protect air travel
There's a very old saying:
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
TSA has been the source of more fear and harassment in this country than any terrorist ever has been able to accomplish.
Now all the terrorists have to do is come up with some new plot and try to pull it off. They don't even have to be successful, just as long as they are caught they can crank up the level of harassment to Americans everywhere.
I don't give the assholes trying to protect air travel credit for shit. Allow guns on airplanes and you can bet your ass there won't be any more hijacking attempts. Of course, it's not a perfect solution, since you still have the occasional suicidal maniac who wants to go down in a blaze of glory, but some sacrifices must be made for our security. ;)
Cargo planes still have people on them. Ban those guys too and it won't be a problem
The problem is they'll just make a book bomb next.
We need to catch explosives, not whatever container they may be in.
I'm amazed they didn't ban underwear after the underwear bomber incident. Seriously, his only failure there was the malfunction of his bomb, his execution was perfect (even though he was on a dozen international watch-lists already, but hey! who cares about that right?).
This reactionary approach does absolutely nothing for our security. Not one thing.
Owing to the fact that it's impossible to test all combinations of devices and planes, under all circumstances and actually know what might/could happen -- they've chosen to ban the whole thing.
That's the dumbest line of reasoning I have ever heard of, but I don't doubt that it's true.
A much saner approach would be to require better shielding on the airplane's components.
Honestly, I don't know the make and model of every car on the market, but that doesn't stop me from crossing the street.
That won't do shit, the airlines have no say in what TSA does.
Those are your tax dollars at work, bending you over and shoving TSA security up your ass every time you fly. The airlines have been in worse shape than ever since TSA ramped up their security theater, yet they haven't managed to do anything to stop it.
Regarding the box cutters, my buddy accidentally smuggled one through security at least a half-dozen times before he realized it was in the bottom of his carry-on luggage. This was a couple years ago, after all the heightened security.
Way to go TSA! Can't even get the fucking weapon that started this whole mess, but by golly do I feel secure now!
Assholes.
Why the fuck would a pilot need co-conspirators to hijack a plane when he sits in a locked room and has complete control of the aircraft?
What a pilot can do with a knife or a bomb is absolutely meaningless compared to what he can do without one. The idea of physically screening pilots when they are in such a position of trust is stupid. Just stupid. Just verify his ID and badge and send him on through. He can already kill everyone on board and thousands of other people if he wants to without a damn box cutter, so why the hell would he bring one?
Or did you mean that we should also ban the pilots (the only people on board the aircraft in this latest incident) from flying?
Are pilots not people? What part of "all people" do you not understand?
Inkjets don't have toner cartridges, dumbass.
I don't know if you know this, but people of like backgrounds and upbringing tend to group together.
Black people have mostly black friends, white people have mostly white friends, yellow people have mostly yellow friends, christians have mostly christian friends, atheists have mostly atheist friends, and muslims have mostly muslim friends.
It is far, far more likely that a muslim of middle-eastern descent is going to know a muslim jihadist of middle eastern descent than any other group in the world.
So yeah, "young middle easterners" tend to be buddies and tend to know the other young middle easterners who live around them. Just like white christians tend to be buddies and tend to know the other white christians who live around them. It is within these groups that extreme positions are found, like "kill all infidels" or "gays are evil".
Given sufficient cuts in funding
I'll believe it when I see it.
As far as I am aware, the federal budget has never been cut in the entire history of the US of A. G.W. Bush caught hell for just trying to reduce the increase in the budget.
Historically, whenever someone gains political office things change. They may have every intention of following through, but it never seems to happen unless there is a huge price tag that can be attached to it.
I'd really like to see a few people with balls in there hold the line and force the issue of cutting the budget. It is so full of useless pork it's ridiculous and completely unnecessary. If a community cannot afford some big spending project and cannot otherwise raise the money for it, then they certainly do not need it and can do without. This goes for all levels of community. The government should be working within its means (which is us), it should not be borrowing from itself, and it should not be borrowing from other countries.
What do you do when there is increased risk? You mitigate it.
The trouble is we aren't mitigating anything.
About two years ago a former coworker of mine accidentally carried a box cutter that had a blade almost an inch thick that could extend out to 4" (it was a serious box cutter) in his carry-on luggage about six times. Eventually, when looking through his bag, he realized the box cutter was in there and removed it. This was through different screeners just about every time, so it wasn't one person fucking up. None of the TSA's "highly trained screeners" could see the box cutter.
This was seven years after 9/11 and TSA missed the weapon used in the 9/11 hijackings six times from one person. Think about that. You also have all those dateline specials and whatnot where they were able to sneak shit on pretty much whenever they pleased. What good are all the insane security measures if they can't even manage to catch the original weapon? Fuck they guy with the box cutter, the guy with the fingernail clippers is by far the greatest threat on the plane, obviously! It must be so, since it is the only thing these screeners seem to be able to catch.
That is why every time some new measure from the TSA comes out I just roll my eyes and say "fuck me". I have to fly regularly for my job, and it's a real pain in the ass for a demonstrable lack of improvement in security. If my buddy could do it six times accidentally, you can bet your ass terrorists can do it intentionally whenever they want.
What else do you suppose they could manage to sneak on board a plane?
Really, this reactive crap is useless. Instead of banning everything after it is snuck through security, how about we figure out how to spot the potential problems in the first place? Just because someone managed to sneak a bomb in through a printer cartridge doesn't mean you should ban printer cartridges. It means you should figure out how to spot bombs no matter what form they take.
I mean, seriously, are they going to ban books on planes as soon as a terrorist sneaks a pound of C-4 in the shape of a book on a plane? With our reactionary security measures, it could certainly happen.
How about instead we cut half the security personnel and hire a drug-sniffing dog? I bet it would be 100x more effective than the TSA is now. Save us some damn money and inconvenience too.
It's not just Skype, that was just an example.
ANY app can be opened this way.
It's definitely Apple's problem. Skype could have been really awesome fixed the problem on their end, but that would not have solved the problem for the 200,000 other apps that can be launched this way.
Here is how it will go down:
First, Apple say this is an app issue, and app vendors need to fix it. They will dig their heals in and effectively say "screw you" to all their loyal customers.
Then, in the next iOS update (or the one after, if the next update is scheduled to be too soon) there will suddenly be a prompt for launching applications via registered URL handlers, possibly with some hype about how Apple is looking out for you, but not necessarily.
When confronted about the dichotomy between their two positions, Steve Jobs will simply reply "Apple is always concerned about the security of our customers, of course we would want to protect them from these kinds malicious attacks." All the while giving the reporter a befuddled look, as if to suggest the reporter is crazy for even asking such a stupid question.