I know this is Slashdot, and that we don't like to RTFA, but please give it at least a glance before replying.
The guy says that he doesn't necessarily think BIOS-based OS is for everybody, and that some people (including him!) will go with a standard setup in this future scenario.
Slashdot people may think they're ordinary users, but that just ain't true. This guy is talking about a whole different class of users in the article.
Plus, bear in mind that Slashdot has a habit of trashing new and interesting technology. It was probably the only site to trash the iPod when it was released. And whatever happened to that?
I know Office extremely well... Or at least I used to. With these latest releases, it's like the developers have taken magic mushrooms and decided to visit Venus.
Seriously, what's going on? Why has everything changed? Who are these changes designed to help? Why did they decide to abandon the system of menus that's been in service since 1984? Just because they've been in service since 1984? That's like Ford abandoning the idea of a steering wheel because it's been used in cars since 1900.
When I look at things like this, I see how far from the straight and narrow Microsoft has strayed. They are really losing all track of what's important to users. They've just lost touch completely.
I'll say one thing for Bill Gates, and one thing only, but the guy could keep his organization together and produce some half-decent software. Ballmer's just a nutjob who's steering the company into the ground.
This man is clearly a small-minded idiot who the BBC should be ashamed to have on their staff.
Frankly, I don't care a jot about support for Linux or Mac. That's not where I'm coming at this from. I'm coming at this from the simple tenets of the BBC's constitution, that "Nation shall speak peace unto nation". This is on the plaque outside Broadcasting House, the BBC main HQ. It's why the BBC has offices in eastern countries you've never heard of. It's why the BBC broadcasts programs for minorities.
It doesn't say "Nation shall speak peace unto nation provided they're running a compatible operating system". That's like it saying, "National shall speak peace unto nations provided they have white skin", or "Nation shall speak peace unto nation provided they support the British government's war on terror". There are no bars here, for any reason, trivial or otherwise.
It really is disgraceful that this man is in a position of power in the BBC. It shows how far standards have slipped in the BBC.
The iPlayer project will very probably be cancelled anyway because another fuckwitt is running the BBC and has massively overstretched the organisation, so that it's now cutting back by billions of pounds. Generation X has all growed-up and they're simply not up to the job.
Here's the problem in a nutshell: Deleting is too easy. It's also strangely enjoyable. People who can't create often like to destroy, and Wikipedia gives them this ability. More than that, it makes them that feel they're doing good by destroying articles!
I would even say there are two types of contributor to Wikipedia: Those who create, and those who destroy. A surprising number of "editors" (I use the term loosely) have never actually written anything.
Instead of deletion, editors should actually "edit" and work to improve the article. They should post constructive comments on how it can be improved or, gulp, actually get in there and improve the article themselves. Deletion should be the last option.
Here's my story: I wrote a lengthy summary of a complicated novel. It took me from dinner time until midnight, because I did it properly and quoted sources. It was deleted (reverted) instantly for reasons of 'copyright' -- quite literally after around a minute of being online. The comment from the "editor" was littered with poor grammar and bad spelling, so I didn't even feel I was being overruled by a superior intellect.
That's five hours of my work destroyed instantly by somebody making an arbitrary decision. OK, I thought, I'll condense my piece into a series of plot points that's shorter, and spent more time doing this. No good. Instant deletion again, by somebody else, this time apparently because what I'd written wasn't relevant. (Somehow the plot points have been reincorporated and are there right now but who knows for the future?)
Wikipedia is a broken machine that's held together by the sheer ego power of its contributors, most of whom are college kids who think they're changing the world.
I just can't wait for this bubble to burst so that people will stop quoting Wikipedia at me, as if that's the end of the matter. It isn't. It's not even the start.
Slashdot Mirror
I know this is Slashdot, and that we don't like to RTFA, but please give it at least a glance before replying.
The guy says that he doesn't necessarily think BIOS-based OS is for everybody, and that some people (including him!) will go with a standard setup in this future scenario.
Slashdot people may think they're ordinary users, but that just ain't true. This guy is talking about a whole different class of users in the article.
Plus, bear in mind that Slashdot has a habit of trashing new and interesting technology. It was probably the only site to trash the iPod when it was released. And whatever happened to that?
I know Office extremely well... Or at least I used to. With these latest releases, it's like the developers have taken magic mushrooms and decided to visit Venus. Seriously, what's going on? Why has everything changed? Who are these changes designed to help? Why did they decide to abandon the system of menus that's been in service since 1984? Just because they've been in service since 1984? That's like Ford abandoning the idea of a steering wheel because it's been used in cars since 1900. When I look at things like this, I see how far from the straight and narrow Microsoft has strayed. They are really losing all track of what's important to users. They've just lost touch completely. I'll say one thing for Bill Gates, and one thing only, but the guy could keep his organization together and produce some half-decent software. Ballmer's just a nutjob who's steering the company into the ground.
This man is clearly a small-minded idiot who the BBC should be ashamed to have on their staff. Frankly, I don't care a jot about support for Linux or Mac. That's not where I'm coming at this from. I'm coming at this from the simple tenets of the BBC's constitution, that "Nation shall speak peace unto nation". This is on the plaque outside Broadcasting House, the BBC main HQ. It's why the BBC has offices in eastern countries you've never heard of. It's why the BBC broadcasts programs for minorities. It doesn't say "Nation shall speak peace unto nation provided they're running a compatible operating system". That's like it saying, "National shall speak peace unto nations provided they have white skin", or "Nation shall speak peace unto nation provided they support the British government's war on terror". There are no bars here, for any reason, trivial or otherwise. It really is disgraceful that this man is in a position of power in the BBC. It shows how far standards have slipped in the BBC. The iPlayer project will very probably be cancelled anyway because another fuckwitt is running the BBC and has massively overstretched the organisation, so that it's now cutting back by billions of pounds. Generation X has all growed-up and they're simply not up to the job.
Here's the problem in a nutshell: Deleting is too easy. It's also strangely enjoyable. People who can't create often like to destroy, and Wikipedia gives them this ability. More than that, it makes them that feel they're doing good by destroying articles! I would even say there are two types of contributor to Wikipedia: Those who create, and those who destroy. A surprising number of "editors" (I use the term loosely) have never actually written anything. Instead of deletion, editors should actually "edit" and work to improve the article. They should post constructive comments on how it can be improved or, gulp, actually get in there and improve the article themselves. Deletion should be the last option. Here's my story: I wrote a lengthy summary of a complicated novel. It took me from dinner time until midnight, because I did it properly and quoted sources. It was deleted (reverted) instantly for reasons of 'copyright' -- quite literally after around a minute of being online. The comment from the "editor" was littered with poor grammar and bad spelling, so I didn't even feel I was being overruled by a superior intellect. That's five hours of my work destroyed instantly by somebody making an arbitrary decision. OK, I thought, I'll condense my piece into a series of plot points that's shorter, and spent more time doing this. No good. Instant deletion again, by somebody else, this time apparently because what I'd written wasn't relevant. (Somehow the plot points have been reincorporated and are there right now but who knows for the future?) Wikipedia is a broken machine that's held together by the sheer ego power of its contributors, most of whom are college kids who think they're changing the world. I just can't wait for this bubble to burst so that people will stop quoting Wikipedia at me, as if that's the end of the matter. It isn't. It's not even the start.