I can certainly understand your perpective, although I am actually a big fan of Ubuntu. So, let me offer a bit of a bounce-back on this, if I may. People have criticized Ubuntu for being just as you describe, but they overlook the fact that it doesn't truly abandon the biggest strength Linux of *any* flavor (And I challenge someone to prove me wrong for a flavor of Linux that's *not* embedded.): Just about everything is configurable. If you don't like something, change it! I experimented with this, just for shits and giggles. With the regular Ubuntu, I installed KDE and made it my default desktop manager, just to show to some non-believers in my group that it could be done.
Then, back in GNOME, I installed Avant (Good little bar thinger, albeit still in early development, works better as a "dock" clone than Gimmie.) and I completely toasted all my GNOME panels through clever usage of sessions configuration and killall and had the entire thing driven from that little bar.
Naturally, this isn't restricted to user interfaces, that's just the most dramatic example I can see that's not transparent. You can choose whatever hell shall you want. Don't like BASH? CSH, KSH! Don't like your distribution's repositories? Alter your sources.list and add more sources, or completely replace your defaults! Want the kernel to be custom fit to your particular machine? Linux from Scratch right back at ye.
Stuff that is natural to "power user" distributions like Gentoo and Slackware can still basically do the same base thing on Ubuntu, though their tools may be different. But so what? Want some tools from a different distro? Install it or compile it. No big deal.
Now, I know this is obvious to most of you, this being a somewhat hardcore Linux base, but sometimes it bears pointing out that what we already know about Linux: It is quite possibly the most flexible operating system made, all thanks to a model of development that is more about choice than saying something like, "Well, if we add X feature and Y feature and bundle it into the system and then lock it in, we'll make millions!"
Now, I know that sounded like a light MS bashing, but its an example of what open source does better than proprietary, down to the very instructional level of the programs, you can make whatever changes you feel like. Try doing that with proprietary software. Without reverse engineering or, to put it bluntly, stealing source code, you can't do it.
This is why I'm not keen on people who talk about how they don't like how Linux has so many different distributions, architectures, kernels, etc. I find myself thinking they're losing sight that the reason there *are* so many different ones is because people like choice. It's probably why a lot of us use Linux in the first place.
I tried Slackware in a VM, I actually liked it, but I prefer Ubuntu. Might wanna try Gentoo, Debian, et al, later.
Linux barely even gets lip-service from what I can tell. No Silverlight for Linux, though there's Moonlight, but I'm pretty sure MS has nothing to do with it.
NO LIP SERVICE FOR YOU!
Fortunately, I see no FUD here, especially after reading the "correct" answers Microsoft provides for it, and the highly restrictive rules. Have to be in Australia, have to be an MS ass-kissing OEM, and basically the best way to get a good score is to flatter MS. FUD? Plus you have to use Silverlight to play it. I don't think installing Silverlight is worth a T-Shirt that probably advertises being an MS shill anyway. Anyone have a good link to buy some good Linux-themed T-shirts?
I think you missed his point. If it was an exploitable Windows box on the net then it would also be fetching updates from Windows Update every second Tuesday. All machines you could reach to exploit would be fixed in five weeks tops. Can you say the same for Linux?
In the case of Linux and many other open source projects well maintained, it has been known to happen within hours of the discovery of the exploit.
I agree. Linux on the desktop over the past 2 years has taken spectacular leaps forward, and the next couple of years are going to be just as bold as Linux starts maturing.
Very true. Though "Linux maturing" can and has been relative. It may not have been ready for desktop, but it has been right on the money for such things as server side applications. And, as far as I have seen, I've seen Linux as the most commonly embedded system over anything else that tried to do the same things. The open source model is what brought it that far, one can easily customize it completely for their needs, which is why for some more "hardcore" Linux users, things like Linux from scratch are a wonderful thing. Its also the only operating system family I can think off that you can install on a thumb drive if you wanted to.
However, I must agree, it is 'not yet there' though it has been shown to be easily used by non-technical users in the case of such Linux distros as Ubuntu or Mint.
* The rise of FireFox and, to a lesser extent, Safari means that the web doesn't require, nor mean, Internet Explorer.
An interesting point. Though, to be nitpicky: Use of the web never required Internet Explorer. However, for most users, and I'm talking Average Joe Shmuck here, it did "mean" Internet Explorer. This was more about Microsoft's highly unethical and illegal practice of dominating markets. Proof of this was when FireFox started seeing higher adoption, we finally got Internet Explorer 7 after a long, long time. I still agree, though that we're finally seeing some other browsers out there getting decent market share after the Netscape fiasco.
* The rise of Ubuntu as a 'standard' has helped solve the confusion of multiple competing desktops to new users and driven increased users. It's also improved support - UbuntuForums is a fantastic resource - and increasingly made GNOME as the "de facto" desktop environment.
Ubuntu is, in my opinion, the most important step toward Linux becoming an operating system Average Joe Shmuck would actually use or even care about. I remember a day where Linux was considered nothing but a "geeky hobbyists tool." Usually by those who never realized that Linux had been rather widesperead in many other markets aside from the desktop. Ubuntu has been helping Linux out a great deal with adoption, especially within the past couple years. I theorize it has been with the veritable flop that is Vista.
* Improved driver support, which is going to keep improving. It's still far from perfect, sadly, but it is most definitely getting there - when Intel and ATI are both releasing open source specifications to get proper open source drivers written, it's a good sign.
I've had firsthand experience with this. After getting fed up with Vista, which was, sadly, pre-installed on my beloved PC, I installed Ubuntu on my machine. Everything worked, no configuration whatsoever. Downgrading my Windows down to XP was a fiasco, however, with almost all of my hardware not working or in "standard mode." (By standard mode I mean the very default settings Windows foists on my hardware so that it will work, but at a bare minimum.) Took me the better part of two days to research my hardware to get XP working. Finally, only about a week ago, I reformatted my entire HDD and made Ubuntu my *only* solution and in the extremely rare instance I need Windows for anything, launch it in a virtual machine. Drivers, on my computer, were just available and worked readily on Ubuntu.
Am I saying it will always work. No, I have a good friend who couldn't get a certain tablet to work correctly, another with limited webcam support, and of course, there's always the dreaded wifi network driver/widescreen display driver availability that Linux had lacked. From what I read in the 2.6.24 changelog, this had been addressed and improved on, but, not using the 2.6.24 kernel, I really can't say.
Maybe this is why Shrinky Dink technology is getting popular with slashdotters. I also wonder what product names for commercial versions of Shrinky Dink processors would be.
WMA is just a codec, and plays just fine on my Ubuntu machine. I'm pretty sure there's nothing that MS can do to take that away from me (technically, at least).
While this is generally true, WMA and WMVs both are excellent vectors for dreaded DRM setups. Note that not all WMAs and WMVs carry it, but I prefer to stick with a format that is never really DRM'd in the first place, even if I have the same song, for example, in a non-blocked format or encapsulation.
But you are indeed right about all that in your post. I just prefer to go by formats not designed by a company already somewhat infamous for trying to control my computer usage. (Microsoft is big on DRM and Trusted Computing, both of which rape the end user in the long run.) This is one of the big reasons why I'll never touch Windows Media Player or iTunes with a long pole.
I must give Apple credit, however. They've been making some progress by stripping some DRM from iTunes, but not enough for my tastes.
Just my opinion. Take it or leave it.
The problem with the reason the person here was fired was now its opened the door for something that will only aggravate the situation. If Geek Squad ethical problems were bad before, it'll get worse now for a reason.
The boss fires the employee who didn't come forward who admitted he indeed knew there was a problem.
So what happens? News spreads, employees learn that one of their colleagues was fired, even if he wasn't technically involved. Those that were in the same position as the fired employee suddenly get very tight lips and shut up. They protect their jobs, but now there's an underground system of copied data that could run through any Geek Squad.
Firing an employee for holding back this information looks to me more like the boss was trying to keep his own job protected. But that's my opinion. Take it or leave it.
Slashdot Mirror
Frankly, I'm glad that never came to fruition. I don't like Internet Explorer, security issues notwithstanding (Though that is a big part of it.).
I can certainly understand your perpective, although I am actually a big fan of Ubuntu. So, let me offer a bit of a bounce-back on this, if I may. People have criticized Ubuntu for being just as you describe, but they overlook the fact that it doesn't truly abandon the biggest strength Linux of *any* flavor (And I challenge someone to prove me wrong for a flavor of Linux that's *not* embedded.): Just about everything is configurable. If you don't like something, change it! I experimented with this, just for shits and giggles. With the regular Ubuntu, I installed KDE and made it my default desktop manager, just to show to some non-believers in my group that it could be done. Then, back in GNOME, I installed Avant (Good little bar thinger, albeit still in early development, works better as a "dock" clone than Gimmie.) and I completely toasted all my GNOME panels through clever usage of sessions configuration and killall and had the entire thing driven from that little bar. Naturally, this isn't restricted to user interfaces, that's just the most dramatic example I can see that's not transparent. You can choose whatever hell shall you want. Don't like BASH? CSH, KSH! Don't like your distribution's repositories? Alter your sources.list and add more sources, or completely replace your defaults! Want the kernel to be custom fit to your particular machine? Linux from Scratch right back at ye. Stuff that is natural to "power user" distributions like Gentoo and Slackware can still basically do the same base thing on Ubuntu, though their tools may be different. But so what? Want some tools from a different distro? Install it or compile it. No big deal. Now, I know this is obvious to most of you, this being a somewhat hardcore Linux base, but sometimes it bears pointing out that what we already know about Linux: It is quite possibly the most flexible operating system made, all thanks to a model of development that is more about choice than saying something like, "Well, if we add X feature and Y feature and bundle it into the system and then lock it in, we'll make millions!" Now, I know that sounded like a light MS bashing, but its an example of what open source does better than proprietary, down to the very instructional level of the programs, you can make whatever changes you feel like. Try doing that with proprietary software. Without reverse engineering or, to put it bluntly, stealing source code, you can't do it. This is why I'm not keen on people who talk about how they don't like how Linux has so many different distributions, architectures, kernels, etc. I find myself thinking they're losing sight that the reason there *are* so many different ones is because people like choice. It's probably why a lot of us use Linux in the first place. I tried Slackware in a VM, I actually liked it, but I prefer Ubuntu. Might wanna try Gentoo, Debian, et al, later.
Linux barely even gets lip-service from what I can tell. No Silverlight for Linux, though there's Moonlight, but I'm pretty sure MS has nothing to do with it. NO LIP SERVICE FOR YOU!
Fortunately, I see no FUD here, especially after reading the "correct" answers Microsoft provides for it, and the highly restrictive rules. Have to be in Australia, have to be an MS ass-kissing OEM, and basically the best way to get a good score is to flatter MS. FUD? Plus you have to use Silverlight to play it. I don't think installing Silverlight is worth a T-Shirt that probably advertises being an MS shill anyway. Anyone have a good link to buy some good Linux-themed T-shirts?
Very true. Though "Linux maturing" can and has been relative. It may not have been ready for desktop, but it has been right on the money for such things as server side applications. And, as far as I have seen, I've seen Linux as the most commonly embedded system over anything else that tried to do the same things. The open source model is what brought it that far, one can easily customize it completely for their needs, which is why for some more "hardcore" Linux users, things like Linux from scratch are a wonderful thing. Its also the only operating system family I can think off that you can install on a thumb drive if you wanted to. However, I must agree, it is 'not yet there' though it has been shown to be easily used by non-technical users in the case of such Linux distros as Ubuntu or Mint.
An interesting point. Though, to be nitpicky: Use of the web never required Internet Explorer. However, for most users, and I'm talking Average Joe Shmuck here, it did "mean" Internet Explorer. This was more about Microsoft's highly unethical and illegal practice of dominating markets. Proof of this was when FireFox started seeing higher adoption, we finally got Internet Explorer 7 after a long, long time. I still agree, though that we're finally seeing some other browsers out there getting decent market share after the Netscape fiasco.
Ubuntu is, in my opinion, the most important step toward Linux becoming an operating system Average Joe Shmuck would actually use or even care about. I remember a day where Linux was considered nothing but a "geeky hobbyists tool." Usually by those who never realized that Linux had been rather widesperead in many other markets aside from the desktop. Ubuntu has been helping Linux out a great deal with adoption, especially within the past couple years. I theorize it has been with the veritable flop that is Vista.
I've had firsthand experience with this. After getting fed up with Vista, which was, sadly, pre-installed on my beloved PC, I installed Ubuntu on my machine. Everything worked, no configuration whatsoever. Downgrading my Windows down to XP was a fiasco, however, with almost all of my hardware not working or in "standard mode." (By standard mode I mean the very default settings Windows foists on my hardware so that it will work, but at a bare minimum.) Took me the better part of two days to research my hardware to get XP working. Finally, only about a week ago, I reformatted my entire HDD and made Ubuntu my *only* solution and in the extremely rare instance I need Windows for anything, launch it in a virtual machine. Drivers, on my computer, were just available and worked readily on Ubuntu. Am I saying it will always work. No, I have a good friend who couldn't get a certain tablet to work correctly, another with limited webcam support, and of course, there's always the dreaded wifi network driver/widescreen display driver availability that Linux had lacked. From what I read in the 2.6.24 changelog, this had been addressed and improved on, but, not using the 2.6.24 kernel, I really can't say.
Maybe this is why Shrinky Dink technology is getting popular with slashdotters. I also wonder what product names for commercial versions of Shrinky Dink processors would be.
Now, I might possibly be wrong... but aren't people doing that anyway?
/. would give us a handbook so we can tell if we like Microsoft or not.
Or was all the anti-Vista and anti-OOXML actually religious praise for Microsoft?
Sometimes I with
WMA is just a codec, and plays just fine on my Ubuntu machine. I'm pretty sure there's nothing that MS can do to take that away from me (technically, at least). While this is generally true, WMA and WMVs both are excellent vectors for dreaded DRM setups. Note that not all WMAs and WMVs carry it, but I prefer to stick with a format that is never really DRM'd in the first place, even if I have the same song, for example, in a non-blocked format or encapsulation. But you are indeed right about all that in your post. I just prefer to go by formats not designed by a company already somewhat infamous for trying to control my computer usage. (Microsoft is big on DRM and Trusted Computing, both of which rape the end user in the long run.) This is one of the big reasons why I'll never touch Windows Media Player or iTunes with a long pole. I must give Apple credit, however. They've been making some progress by stripping some DRM from iTunes, but not enough for my tastes. Just my opinion. Take it or leave it.
The problem with the reason the person here was fired was now its opened the door for something that will only aggravate the situation. If Geek Squad ethical problems were bad before, it'll get worse now for a reason.
The boss fires the employee who didn't come forward who admitted he indeed knew there was a problem.
So what happens? News spreads, employees learn that one of their colleagues was fired, even if he wasn't technically involved. Those that were in the same position as the fired employee suddenly get very tight lips and shut up. They protect their jobs, but now there's an underground system of copied data that could run through any Geek Squad.
Firing an employee for holding back this information looks to me more like the boss was trying to keep his own job protected. But that's my opinion. Take it or leave it.