But most of us go in there for "fast" food. The last thing I want is to sit and wait to order because some idiot is asking for instructions on how to use the wi-fi.
The real issue isn't usability, it is control. On a Linux desktop, you are in complete control, you don't have MS or Apple giving you a standard desktop that is difficult to change, you cave a variety of environments to choose from, some of which you need to decide on during installation. Even with the simple to use package managers out there for us, a user is confronted mith seemingly endless options, all with names like CUPS and Samba, Python etc with a short, overly technical description to tell them what they are choosing. While distros like Ubuntu offer a nearly complete and usable experience out of the box for most users, all those choices are still there, almost palpable beneath the surface. The average user needs only to look in the package manager to become overwhelmed, and sees this as a usability issue, because they can see all of the cool things that they could do, but have no idea what most of them are.
However, in many states, you can no longer put a child in a rear facing seat. Therefore, if I want to take all four children and my wife somewhere, together, I have to use a mini-van or a van.
The only thing stopping me from going Linux are the viruses. We desperately need the virus industry to start porting the viruses.
I just want to feel like I'm a part of the botnet crowd! I wanna fit in!
I agree about the fast food issue. I have, lately, taken to cutting myself off from caffeine at noon, which is easy enough at home, but if I go out to eat, It can be very hard to find anything with no caffeine, and no sugar. I hate to have to pay to drink water.
Apple sells a product that appeals to its target market. Apparently that is not you. I am intrigued by the envy you seem to feel for the Apple demographic. You are on the outside, alone in the dark, looking into the friendly and brightly lit world of the Apple users. The ones who don't need geek approval, who can choose a platform (not hardware, not OS, but a combination of both) that provides the total user experience that they are looking for. What you don't seem to understand is that you are not the world. There is a whole world filled with people who don't use the command line, and don't want to. Please do not trash the choices of others because they don't match yours, we all have different needs and wants and priorities. It shows you for the small, pitiful thing that you are.
This has very little to do with user stupidity. Indeed, users should not execute things willy-nilly, but it's surely okay to open a file and look at its contents? If you think that is inherently unsafe then users must be prohibited from receiving email attachments (or downloading from web pages) altogether.
In this case there are no warning dialogues to click through, no unusual steps. All that happens is you save a file and then double-click to open it. There is no way to see in advance that the file is unsafe, and it can adopt any icon and name it wishes, so in the user interface it is *indistinguishable* from a legitimate desktop icon such as the trash can.
It gets a laugh on Slashdot to castigate 'stupid' users, but if the system does not provide users with the information needed to make an informed choice, then the system is at fault.
Informed choice: don't open unknown and unrequested attachments. Simple.
You're still wrong. RAM, HDD and CPU are all the same, as is the graphics card. The power supplies are different; many other manufacturers make proprietary PSUs or MOBOs as well. What would you upgrade that you can't?
Its not, really. Its more like saying that you can't take the wheels off of the Malibu, and put them on a Mustang, which you can't. I can take many peripherals from my PC, and slap them onto a mac, like printers, keyboards, etc, even some of the parts (RAM, HDD) and they bothe run on the same 110 current, just like your Mustang and Malibu both run on the same gasoline.
Anyone can speak in such a way that they intentionally create a false impression without actually mouthing a lie. My ex-wife was excellent at this, and to this day pompously claims that she doesn't lie. To say that this is not lying is to employ the same type verbal snakery that she uses, twisting statements to the point where no one believes anything, because it just isn't worth the effort to unravel every statement to see just how many meanings it may have. I wouldn't call that a healthy political system, either.
Both MS Office and Open Office are more than a word processor and spreadsheet. The compatibility issue breaks down completely when you bring Access into the picture. It's the reason I haven't transitioned at my job, as we found in testing that all of our word docs and the majority of our excel sheets would work fine. We still need to keep MS Office 97 for some of the older Access filed. Also, if you use publisher or frontpage you won;t get much help moving to OO.
Only the upgrade package, as their is no starter OSX available except through the purchase of a new MAC. I am not defending Apple here, merely pointing out that this was not an even comparison (avoiding the "apples to apples" remark).
We all have the option of not buying OSX if we don't like the EULA. Windows is not OSX, but it is functional and will do what most of us want.
IBM Never owned DOS. They licensed it from Microsoft. Compaq cloned the PC with software that they licensed from the legal owner. Apple owns OS X. There is no third party available to give Psystar the go ahead that MS gave to Compaq.
Unfortunately, the AV out right now won't protect a mac. It is designed to catch Windows bugs, and when they come for the Mac, even those with AV will be unprotected.
What strikes me about SUSE, and I use both Suse Enterprise and RedHat in a Windows Domain, is that, compared to other distros I have played with, it seems to interact much more nicely in a Windows world than, say, Ubuntu. If you want to make inroads into MS dominance, than what we need is the enterprise users. This means the ability to make a gradual shift from Windows to Linux, and that can't happen with an OS that does not interact nicely with Windows. SUSE plays much nicer in a Windows domain than Ubuntu, at least from my limited trials.
Slashdot Mirror
But most of us go in there for "fast" food. The last thing I want is to sit and wait to order because some idiot is asking for instructions on how to use the wi-fi.
The real issue isn't usability, it is control. On a Linux desktop, you are in complete control, you don't have MS or Apple giving you a standard desktop that is difficult to change, you cave a variety of environments to choose from, some of which you need to decide on during installation. Even with the simple to use package managers out there for us, a user is confronted mith seemingly endless options, all with names like CUPS and Samba, Python etc with a short, overly technical description to tell them what they are choosing. While distros like Ubuntu offer a nearly complete and usable experience out of the box for most users, all those choices are still there, almost palpable beneath the surface. The average user needs only to look in the package manager to become overwhelmed, and sees this as a usability issue, because they can see all of the cool things that they could do, but have no idea what most of them are.
However, in many states, you can no longer put a child in a rear facing seat. Therefore, if I want to take all four children and my wife somewhere, together, I have to use a mini-van or a van.
Well, the post mocking Windows was a little clever, the post mocking Linux was just mean.
In which case it wouldn't hurt to do the clean install.
Why does it seem that so many people are keeping important data and programs on a beta?
how long have you used it?
The only thing stopping me from going Linux are the viruses. We desperately need the virus industry to start porting the viruses. I just want to feel like I'm a part of the botnet crowd! I wanna fit in!
I think that is one of my users...
I agree about the fast food issue. I have, lately, taken to cutting myself off from caffeine at noon, which is easy enough at home, but if I go out to eat, It can be very hard to find anything with no caffeine, and no sugar. I hate to have to pay to drink water.
Apple sells a product that appeals to its target market. Apparently that is not you. I am intrigued by the envy you seem to feel for the Apple demographic. You are on the outside, alone in the dark, looking into the friendly and brightly lit world of the Apple users. The ones who don't need geek approval, who can choose a platform (not hardware, not OS, but a combination of both) that provides the total user experience that they are looking for. What you don't seem to understand is that you are not the world. There is a whole world filled with people who don't use the command line, and don't want to. Please do not trash the choices of others because they don't match yours, we all have different needs and wants and priorities. It shows you for the small, pitiful thing that you are.
Just Wow
From TFA:
Since when are we talking about the article?
This has very little to do with user stupidity. Indeed, users should not execute things willy-nilly, but it's surely okay to open a file and look at its contents? If you think that is inherently unsafe then users must be prohibited from receiving email attachments (or downloading from web pages) altogether.
In this case there are no warning dialogues to click through, no unusual steps. All that happens is you save a file and then double-click to open it. There is no way to see in advance that the file is unsafe, and it can adopt any icon and name it wishes, so in the user interface it is *indistinguishable* from a legitimate desktop icon such as the trash can.
It gets a laugh on Slashdot to castigate 'stupid' users, but if the system does not provide users with the information needed to make an informed choice, then the system is at fault.
Informed choice: don't open unknown and unrequested attachments. Simple.
So, you would say its reasonable to have to buy a whole new machine to upgrade the OS?
You're still wrong. RAM, HDD and CPU are all the same, as is the graphics card. The power supplies are different; many other manufacturers make proprietary PSUs or MOBOs as well. What would you upgrade that you can't?
Its not, really. Its more like saying that you can't take the wheels off of the Malibu, and put them on a Mustang, which you can't. I can take many peripherals from my PC, and slap them onto a mac, like printers, keyboards, etc, even some of the parts (RAM, HDD) and they bothe run on the same 110 current, just like your Mustang and Malibu both run on the same gasoline.
Anyone can speak in such a way that they intentionally create a false impression without actually mouthing a lie. My ex-wife was excellent at this, and to this day pompously claims that she doesn't lie. To say that this is not lying is to employ the same type verbal snakery that she uses, twisting statements to the point where no one believes anything, because it just isn't worth the effort to unravel every statement to see just how many meanings it may have. I wouldn't call that a healthy political system, either.
Both MS Office and Open Office are more than a word processor and spreadsheet. The compatibility issue breaks down completely when you bring Access into the picture. It's the reason I haven't transitioned at my job, as we found in testing that all of our word docs and the majority of our excel sheets would work fine. We still need to keep MS Office 97 for some of the older Access filed. Also, if you use publisher or frontpage you won;t get much help moving to OO.
Following the advice here http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=3&threadID=201099&messageID=2231826 fixed the windows update hanging for me at my company.
The posts I see marked troll all say simply novel bad...M$.. with no real insight. I don't see any marked troll that go deeper than that.
Only the upgrade package, as their is no starter OSX available except through the purchase of a new MAC. I am not defending Apple here, merely pointing out that this was not an even comparison (avoiding the "apples to apples" remark). We all have the option of not buying OSX if we don't like the EULA. Windows is not OSX, but it is functional and will do what most of us want.
"You are an enabler, you enable people to avoid RTFA :D"
For which we thank you
IBM Never owned DOS. They licensed it from Microsoft. Compaq cloned the PC with software that they licensed from the legal owner. Apple owns OS X. There is no third party available to give Psystar the go ahead that MS gave to Compaq.
Unfortunately, the AV out right now won't protect a mac. It is designed to catch Windows bugs, and when they come for the Mac, even those with AV will be unprotected.
What strikes me about SUSE, and I use both Suse Enterprise and RedHat in a Windows Domain, is that, compared to other distros I have played with, it seems to interact much more nicely in a Windows world than, say, Ubuntu. If you want to make inroads into MS dominance, than what we need is the enterprise users. This means the ability to make a gradual shift from Windows to Linux, and that can't happen with an OS that does not interact nicely with Windows. SUSE plays much nicer in a Windows domain than Ubuntu, at least from my limited trials.