Aren't most security problems these days application-level? What is any OS going to do to protect my data when it's all in user mode? An OS can only cover its own ass.
Not to mention the fact that since we do most things over the Internet in a web browser, it's a single point of failure. Run a PDF viewer in your browser as a plug-in? Oh, what a great idea.
It's not just Mac users that are in denial. Linux isn't going to keep your data safe either if there's a security flaw in the web browser, and... oh boy, are there plenty.
Companies spending too much time perfecting their UI design will go out of business while their competitors are shipping flawed but ultimately usable products.
What's this deal with "unseating" the predominant format? This isn't a war.
Personally, I don't like the idea of browser vendors choosing which formats we can use for our data, for our own good/conenience/safety. Reminds me of how Mozilla didn't like MNG, the official standard for animated PNGs, so they rolled their own APNG format that nobody uses, thus resulting in people still using GIFs across the Internet. Way to go.
If anyone really cared about bloat, people would stop using stupid JavaScript hacks for a "richer user experience" that end up burning 100% CPU time. A simple open-source codec isn't going to add bloat, especially if browsers supported codecs properly, like just about every media player does.
Blame Sun and Adobe for not having autoupdaters like Chrome does for Flash.
I've used Autoruns to try to disable anything from Adobe from running on my computer when I start it. Yet, every time there's a Flash update, I get a pop-up at system boot telling me to update. I've dug through the registry, the startup menu, services, disabled it in IE... everything... and I can't figure out how it keeps running. Flash needs admin access to install. Is it using some kind of root hack to make sure the updater runs?
I'm not sure why you're saying Flash doesn't have an auto-update, because I have it, and I can't find any imaginable way to shut it off!
The first iPod I tried was (if I remember correctly) the 3rd generation. It had the newfangled touch wheel, and was the first to have the face buttons were removed in favor of the single button inside the wheel. It took me about five minutes to figure out that I couldn't push the icons printed on the wheel to move up and down through the menus. I had to twirl my thumb in a circular direction. Five minutes of pushing with absolutely no response, before I realized that the seamless buttons weren't buttons at all. I thought it worked like a microwave control panel, where the buttons were flush to the case. I felt pretty damn stupid.
Once I figured it out, though, I was aghast at how slow and inefficient it was to navigate. Rather than having a dedicated "back" button, complete with a text label, the iPod menu had a back option at the top. So, on a properly designed device, I could just push "back", but on the iPod, I had to scroll to the top, select the "back" menu option, and then push the wheel button to activate going back to the previous menu. I was disgusted at how complicated the interface was. It was visually so simple, but the functionality was unnecessarily complex.
At the time, I had already been using computers for over 10 years, having started on a C-64, grown up on the Amiga, and later moved to both DOS and Windows, and used Macs in college. I've used OS/2, BeOS, RiscOS, dozens of Linux distros, and many other weird OSes nobody has ever heard of. I have experience with many, many interfaces across multiple architectures. I also use TV remote controls, light switches, microwaves, door handles, and have a manual transmission in my car. Yet, the iPod interface was not at all obvious.
Since then, I've constantly wondered why the iPod is considered the pinnacle of design. It's complex, clumsy, and for anyone who's used a computer or a microwave, unintuitive. The first iPod, not designed by Apple, was well designed and obvious. Apple messed up future revisions when they restyled it so the buttons still looked like buttons, but they didn't perform that function, while simultaneously getting rid of the buttons that actually did useful stuff.
Does one seriously have to un-learn everything about computers to use an application device? I don't see anyone else complaining.
Oversimplifying an interface frequently increases it's functional complexity. Jef Raskin documented this many, many years ago, but it's amazing how many people either don't know this principle, or don't care because simple interfaces are marketable.
I used to drive fork trucks in a warehouse, and the old machines had a series of 3 levers on the control panel for moving the forks in different directions. Each lever had one function: lift, sideways, and tilt. The interface was easy to learn, accurate, and highly efficient. Then, we got a bunch of new machines where the 3 levers were replaced with a single lever with a mode button. By pushing the button, the machine would cycle through 3 different direction modes. Not only did this make the interface much harder to learn, but it was infuriating, slow, and in my opinion, dangerous because you could only move in one direction at a time, which made it difficult to balance loads correctly. As an added bonus, the mode helpfully reset to "lift" after moving the lever in any direction, so if you pulled on the lever to tilt the pallet backwards, and then pushed on the lever to tilt it a bit forward, the machine would actually tilt the pallet backwards, and then drop the pallet onto the floor.
Why replace excellent, clear, usable controls with a confusing, modal interface? Well, it only had one lever and one button. That's way simpler than three levers, of course.
Every time I try to use my answering machine, pick up a TV remote control, or use a new web browser, I feel like everything is moving towards one lever. It's absolutely horrible for usability, but the focus groups insist otherwise. You don't really need a maximize button, do you? That stuff is durned scary! Let's get rid of everything, including text lables, to improve the user experience.
New Bitcoins can be created, old ones never become obsolete, and theoretically, all Bitcoins are identical.
They increase in value?
The value of bitcoins rises, massively, people hold on to bitcoins instead of spending them because they'll be worth more later, the value then rises further due to scarcity, causing a feedback loop.
I hear the stock market is supposed to work the same way.
I've been told you can't steal imaginary property, but apparently, you can hoard it.
You have the strangest idea of "just works". Needs a re-install every year is part of "just works"?
Needs a re-install every year if you load it up with crapware that demands admin access and assumes total control of your machine "just because." Windows is okay as an OS. It's Windows developers that have a strange idea of "just works."
I can't recall re-installing Windows even within the last 5 years.
And, unless you are moving to a newer distro, Linux distributions don't need a re-install every year
Lucky you. I can't say my distro updates have worked that smoothly. Hell, I have an Ubuntu boot disk that insists that I need driver updates, but trying to download anything returns a 404 because my updater (on a write-only CD-ROM) needs updating. Maybe you CLI gurus can deal with it, but for normal people, what good is a boot disk that won't boot into a GUI? I need to use one distro for my PC, and a totally different distro for my boot disk?
I'm not sure what's worse about Slashdot... the fact that the link you provided is broken, or the fact that when I tried to click on it, Slashdot unfolded the thread with JavaScript instead of actually, you know, letting me click the link.
Well, that's more of a problem with the browser's security policies.
No script should be able to call events that go outside of its containing context (if you want to open or close a "window", it had better be affecting a frame within the current window, thank you). Creating calls like "window.open" and attaching them to JavaScript was a really stupid idea from the start. That's the fault of the web browser developers. If done right, JavaScript, DOM, and whatever browsers want to use wouldn't be a big deal.
The real problem is that JavaScript basically runs in one giant address space, so any JavaScript imported from 3rd party web sites have the same level of access as 1st party JavaScript. This is incredibly stupid. A lot of web sites outsource to ad agencies, or use more than one ad agency, so keeping track of good/bad agencies is a major challenge. Not like you can trust advertisers who have the chance to leech your data to improve their service, either. Once their code is included in your web page, they can do pretty much anything with your customer's data, cookies, keystrokes, etc. It's a security nightmare. Advertising is all about collecting and serving information. What could possibly go wrong?
DeviantArt has been hit with a rash of ad-delivered mal-ware, particularly through PDF exploits. The site has officially stated that their ad agencies are responsible, they "try" to get good ad agencies, but at the end of the day, you need anti-virus software on YOUR computer and there's not much DA can do about it. That's BS. The ads have been serving mal-ware for years, so whatever action their taking to get good ad services and dump bad ones obviously isn't working. If they don't take mal-ware seriously, what will they do if the ads start leeching my notes and my passwords?
Technically, JavaScript only needs better scope to help control the 1st party vs 3rd party problem. The rest is up to browser security policies, which are equally horrid, and none of the browser vendors seem to care. JavaScript and DOM were implemented in a hurry to offer stupid tricks and dynamic content. Security was never considered, and today is outright ignored on purpose.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a web site that shows a spinning busy indicator at the bottom of the screen when you try to close the window (at least on Firefox).
Just how Web 2.0 does a web site have to be that it now needs to "shut down?"
The purpose of teaching children is to teach them to be good, useful people when they become adults.
And the purpose of this incident is to teach them what is to be considered normal and acceptable when they become adults.
and it was maybe the most comfortable one I've ever used, even to this day.
First time ever I've heard someone say this.
The thing gave me knuckle burn like nothing else.
This might be a better analogy if you were only leasing the car, and didn't purchase it.
But, who knows. Soon you may not be allowed to own the car at all. It worked that way for the EV-1.
The people, or the government?
Aren't most security problems these days application-level? What is any OS going to do to protect my data when it's all in user mode? An OS can only cover its own ass.
Not to mention the fact that since we do most things over the Internet in a web browser, it's a single point of failure. Run a PDF viewer in your browser as a plug-in? Oh, what a great idea.
It's not just Mac users that are in denial. Linux isn't going to keep your data safe either if there's a security flaw in the web browser, and... oh boy, are there plenty.
Or maybe he used strings... joined by points in space.
All that tells me is that it doesn't fit on a calculator screen.
Firefox is given away for free. There is no sales revenue.
There's always ego.
Plenty to go around in both the open source and free-as-in-beer world.
Companies spending too much time perfecting their UI design will go out of business while their competitors are shipping flawed but ultimately usable products.
Uh... like Apple?
What's this deal with "unseating" the predominant format? This isn't a war.
Personally, I don't like the idea of browser vendors choosing which formats we can use for our data, for our own good/conenience/safety. Reminds me of how Mozilla didn't like MNG, the official standard for animated PNGs, so they rolled their own APNG format that nobody uses, thus resulting in people still using GIFs across the Internet. Way to go.
If anyone really cared about bloat, people would stop using stupid JavaScript hacks for a "richer user experience" that end up burning 100% CPU time. A simple open-source codec isn't going to add bloat, especially if browsers supported codecs properly, like just about every media player does.
Even a miracle needs a hand.
I seem to recall that Wiis were getting bricked on occasion, too. Not to piss on your parade, of course.
Blame Sun and Adobe for not having autoupdaters like Chrome does for Flash.
I've used Autoruns to try to disable anything from Adobe from running on my computer when I start it. Yet, every time there's a Flash update, I get a pop-up at system boot telling me to update. I've dug through the registry, the startup menu, services, disabled it in IE... everything... and I can't figure out how it keeps running. Flash needs admin access to install. Is it using some kind of root hack to make sure the updater runs?
I'm not sure why you're saying Flash doesn't have an auto-update, because I have it, and I can't find any imaginable way to shut it off!
Reminds me of my first experience with an iPod.
The first iPod I tried was (if I remember correctly) the 3rd generation. It had the newfangled touch wheel, and was the first to have the face buttons were removed in favor of the single button inside the wheel. It took me about five minutes to figure out that I couldn't push the icons printed on the wheel to move up and down through the menus. I had to twirl my thumb in a circular direction. Five minutes of pushing with absolutely no response, before I realized that the seamless buttons weren't buttons at all. I thought it worked like a microwave control panel, where the buttons were flush to the case. I felt pretty damn stupid.
Once I figured it out, though, I was aghast at how slow and inefficient it was to navigate. Rather than having a dedicated "back" button, complete with a text label, the iPod menu had a back option at the top. So, on a properly designed device, I could just push "back", but on the iPod, I had to scroll to the top, select the "back" menu option, and then push the wheel button to activate going back to the previous menu. I was disgusted at how complicated the interface was. It was visually so simple, but the functionality was unnecessarily complex.
At the time, I had already been using computers for over 10 years, having started on a C-64, grown up on the Amiga, and later moved to both DOS and Windows, and used Macs in college. I've used OS/2, BeOS, RiscOS, dozens of Linux distros, and many other weird OSes nobody has ever heard of. I have experience with many, many interfaces across multiple architectures. I also use TV remote controls, light switches, microwaves, door handles, and have a manual transmission in my car. Yet, the iPod interface was not at all obvious.
Since then, I've constantly wondered why the iPod is considered the pinnacle of design. It's complex, clumsy, and for anyone who's used a computer or a microwave, unintuitive. The first iPod, not designed by Apple, was well designed and obvious. Apple messed up future revisions when they restyled it so the buttons still looked like buttons, but they didn't perform that function, while simultaneously getting rid of the buttons that actually did useful stuff.
Does one seriously have to un-learn everything about computers to use an application device? I don't see anyone else complaining.
Oversimplifying an interface frequently increases it's functional complexity. Jef Raskin documented this many, many years ago, but it's amazing how many people either don't know this principle, or don't care because simple interfaces are marketable.
I used to drive fork trucks in a warehouse, and the old machines had a series of 3 levers on the control panel for moving the forks in different directions. Each lever had one function: lift, sideways, and tilt. The interface was easy to learn, accurate, and highly efficient. Then, we got a bunch of new machines where the 3 levers were replaced with a single lever with a mode button. By pushing the button, the machine would cycle through 3 different direction modes. Not only did this make the interface much harder to learn, but it was infuriating, slow, and in my opinion, dangerous because you could only move in one direction at a time, which made it difficult to balance loads correctly. As an added bonus, the mode helpfully reset to "lift" after moving the lever in any direction, so if you pulled on the lever to tilt the pallet backwards, and then pushed on the lever to tilt it a bit forward, the machine would actually tilt the pallet backwards, and then drop the pallet onto the floor.
Why replace excellent, clear, usable controls with a confusing, modal interface? Well, it only had one lever and one button. That's way simpler than three levers, of course.
Every time I try to use my answering machine, pick up a TV remote control, or use a new web browser, I feel like everything is moving towards one lever. It's absolutely horrible for usability, but the focus groups insist otherwise. You don't really need a maximize button, do you? That stuff is durned scary! Let's get rid of everything, including text lables, to improve the user experience.
SUVs kill many more Americans every year than died in the September 11 attacks.
Alas, this analogy never works, for the same reason my friend insists that his pickup truck is safer than my car because his truck is heavier.
New Bitcoins can be created, old ones never become obsolete, and theoretically, all Bitcoins are identical.
They increase in value?
The value of bitcoins rises, massively, people hold on to bitcoins instead of spending them because they'll be worth more later, the value then rises further due to scarcity, causing a feedback loop.
I hear the stock market is supposed to work the same way.
I've been told you can't steal imaginary property, but apparently, you can hoard it.
"Just double my order."
Not like it should have been there from the start or anything.
What's this about source code not being released because it's kinda lousy and will be replaced with something better in the future or whatnot?
My data is mine. Company promises and late bandages mean nothing to me.
Child porn. No go.
You have the strangest idea of "just works". Needs a re-install every year is part of "just works"?
Needs a re-install every year if you load it up with crapware that demands admin access and assumes total control of your machine "just because." Windows is okay as an OS. It's Windows developers that have a strange idea of "just works."
I can't recall re-installing Windows even within the last 5 years.
And, unless you are moving to a newer distro, Linux distributions don't need a re-install every year
Lucky you. I can't say my distro updates have worked that smoothly. Hell, I have an Ubuntu boot disk that insists that I need driver updates, but trying to download anything returns a 404 because my updater (on a write-only CD-ROM) needs updating. Maybe you CLI gurus can deal with it, but for normal people, what good is a boot disk that won't boot into a GUI? I need to use one distro for my PC, and a totally different distro for my boot disk?
Ironically, people say Android is fragmented.
Just what I need... doing homework on rented equipment.
I'm not sure what's worse about Slashdot... the fact that the link you provided is broken, or the fact that when I tried to click on it, Slashdot unfolded the thread with JavaScript instead of actually, you know, letting me click the link.
Well, that's more of a problem with the browser's security policies.
No script should be able to call events that go outside of its containing context (if you want to open or close a "window", it had better be affecting a frame within the current window, thank you). Creating calls like "window.open" and attaching them to JavaScript was a really stupid idea from the start. That's the fault of the web browser developers. If done right, JavaScript, DOM, and whatever browsers want to use wouldn't be a big deal.
The real problem is that JavaScript basically runs in one giant address space, so any JavaScript imported from 3rd party web sites have the same level of access as 1st party JavaScript. This is incredibly stupid. A lot of web sites outsource to ad agencies, or use more than one ad agency, so keeping track of good/bad agencies is a major challenge. Not like you can trust advertisers who have the chance to leech your data to improve their service, either. Once their code is included in your web page, they can do pretty much anything with your customer's data, cookies, keystrokes, etc. It's a security nightmare. Advertising is all about collecting and serving information. What could possibly go wrong?
DeviantArt has been hit with a rash of ad-delivered mal-ware, particularly through PDF exploits. The site has officially stated that their ad agencies are responsible, they "try" to get good ad agencies, but at the end of the day, you need anti-virus software on YOUR computer and there's not much DA can do about it. That's BS. The ads have been serving mal-ware for years, so whatever action their taking to get good ad services and dump bad ones obviously isn't working. If they don't take mal-ware seriously, what will they do if the ads start leeching my notes and my passwords?
Technically, JavaScript only needs better scope to help control the 1st party vs 3rd party problem. The rest is up to browser security policies, which are equally horrid, and none of the browser vendors seem to care. JavaScript and DOM were implemented in a hurry to offer stupid tricks and dynamic content. Security was never considered, and today is outright ignored on purpose.