Correct. The title of this entire discussion is especially misleading, as if Solaris had been 32bit until yesterday.
What's even worse is the latest print copy of _ent_magazine_ (The Independent Newspaper for Windows NT Computing) has a front page article on Intel's 64bit chip where they quote: "Intel announced its newest chip, Itanium, which was previously known as Merced. Several OEMs, however, are sticking with their current architecture."
They seem to imply that the OEMs are foolish for continuing to use their own 64bit chips when now Intel has a *real* 64bit processor. As if for some reason Intel is a saviour. Yes, we can now replace our crummy 64bit chips with superior Intel ones. Oh, wow!
I predict we'll see this kind of argument more in the future. "Well, you'll want to use Intel's chip because they are better then others that have been out longer. Nonsense. However, this will make other chips cheaper, thank goodness.
Of course, by the time 64bit chips are common-place the other "OEM's" will be using 128bit chips...
That's why you tell them, "check out the manual and the help pages and see if you can figure it out." Do you honestly think they'll be able to figure out a symlink issue under Linux before they'd figure out a similar problem under Windows? Please...
No, and I don't expect them to fix their problems with Windows either. There are 2 types of people. People who want to learn the OS, and how it works and stuff. And people how don't want to (and shouldn't need to) know what to do when something breaks.
For the first group of people I'd teach them Linux. And for the second group of people I'd set up Linux, configure, and support it for them.
BTW, has anyone checked whether this version expires?
Yes.
From their README
INSTALLER AND PLAYER EXPIRATION
These versions of the Installer and the Alpha 2 RealPlayer G2 will expire on March 15, 2000.
We encourage you to visit http://www.real.com/products prior to that date to download a new version of the RealPlayer G2 for Unix, as newer versions of the product will be available far in advance of this expiration date.
A number of people have been citing lack of remote administration features as a reason to not choose Windows. However, if you preinstall VNC on the computer, you have about all the remote administration you need.
VNC might be an *okay* solution. At least you have *something* to work with. But what about copying new files to the box. You've got to install an ftp server. How about if you are someplace that doesn't have a graphical console? Now you've got to install an rsh server. Maybe you want to use ssh for security? How do I tunnel VNC through an ip masq box?
I still think that for real remote administration you can't get Windows to perform. And that doesn't even get down to other issues like scripting. A lot of tasks can be automated in Linux with scripts. And more can be set up in a web page so that you can have bookmarks for all the improtant tasks. Instead of teaching a user how to connect/disconnect from the internet using to different places, you've got a bookmark to a page that let's them manage the internet connection
What happens in a few months when he wants to download some screensaver he heard about, and it doesn't work on Linux. Or someone he knows tells him about this new chess or cribage (or whatever) game... There are a million downsides to Linux in this situation.
There are a million downsides to any OS. The minute you give someone Windows, they'll be calling you up because they can't get Gadzuper 99 running on their computer. Of course, it only comes in a Mac version. Or you give them a Mac, and now they want to install a Windows program. Or they just *have* to have this cool program. But it only runs under Linux.
You can't have everything. Especially when it somes to applications. For an extremely "idiot" user, where they just want to do a limited number of things, I'd put applications far down on the list to evaluating a solution. Near the top I'd put, Can the user easily get "lost"/corrupt the system, and can I easily maintain it.
these "linux is the solution, how can i make it fit my problem?" posts are exactly the reason linux users have such a bad rep:-(.
So wise guy, my grandma calls, she's having a problem with Outlook Express. It has the wrong return e-mail address. Yes, she messed this up and didn't know what she did to fix it.
I can
a) Try to walk her through the accounts menu and fix it.
b) Drive an hour, one way over there and fix it. c) Log into her computer and change it.
Oh, I can't do 'c' in Windows, can I? She could get e-mail and surf the web in either Windows or Linux with no real difference to her. She doesn't care the least what an OS is, or what OS she uses as long as she gets her e-mail. So, what's the better solution? I'm sure you'll be able to figure this simple logic out, eh? -Brent --
Since you've already bought the Gateway (with Win98, most likely), I say stick with that and don't bother to go with Linux. Your grandfather doesn't need much more than the basics and all of those have been provided. It's good enough as is.
This is actually not bad advice. If it's good enough, why change it, right? However I don't see the point in this...
then hand him your pager number and say "if you ever need help, give me a call Grandpa."
When Grandpa calls, what are you going to do? If you had installed Linux, the problem would have been solved because you could log into the box and fix it. But there's no remote administration with Windows. So when Grandpa calls, there's not one thing you can do. No, sorry, forget about walking him through anything, it's not going to happen.
Usually, if they have to have Windows and they call with a problem, the best I can tell them is 'reboot and take two asprin'.
one thing that windows does good is accessibility. out of the box one can navigate without using the mouse/pointer at all, using only the keyboard. popping open the accessibility control panel reveals a bunch of other nice options that would be useful to your grandaddy.
They released KDE while you were out...
don't force Linux to do what it is currently ill equipted to do, that will only give it a bad name.
Actually, Linux is very well equiped to serve as a stable platform that novice users can't mess up. It gives them a full graphical environment allowing them to do anything they want with one click of the mouse. It also provides the strongest remote administration ability, which is *vital* when being used by people who don't want to learn how to maintain their own PC. Which is the case for most consumers, I might add.
Just keep/put Win98 on it. It does everything he wants it to do, and has the added benifit of lots of books and sites about it.
Grandpa doesn't want to *do* anything with the OS. He wants to surf the web, get e-mail, and other similar standard applications. Grandpa isn't interested in the registry, he isn't interested in virtual memory, or other settings. He isn't interested in installing software on his own. He just wants a computer that he can turn on, click an icon, and go.
The Linux How-To's are a joke when used by a complete newbie, and most of the computer articles in the newspapers,
Grandpa doesn't want to learn become a system admin, for heavens sakes. He just wants to get his e-mail and surf the web. He's not going to be reading any how-tos, or even any books on Windows.
Use whatever is best for the job. In my personal experiance, Linux isn't exactly the most user friendly OS, which is what your Grandfather would need.
In this case, Linux is best for the job. Set up KDE with the icons on the desktop. Grandpa turns on the PC, clicks the e-mail icon, and reads his e-mail. *That* my friend is real user-friendliness. He doesn't have to worry about breaking anything, because Linux has real security. And when something breaks, or he wants something changed or added (which will happen on Windows too), it is a simple thing to remotely administer a Linux box.
Which is summed up as, Grandpa will be happy, not only because he can do what he wants, but also because he can call grandson to keep it that way with no hassles.
Linux is great for all those techies and wanna-be techies. But this is going too far. Just imagine if something goes wrong, he wont be able to fix it.
Okay, *you* explain how Grandpa is going to "fix" a problem with a computer that he doesn't know more about then how to click an icon and type?
Sorry, it doesn't matter that it's an iMac. Computers don't magically become easier to fix, just because they were designed for the consumer.
Young grandson is going to get the call to fix whatever is wrong with the computer whether it's Linux or MacOS. Which do you think is the easier OS to remotely support?
Remember, Grandpa doesn't know what the OS is, and doesn't care. All he wants to do is to browse the web and get e-mail.
I've thought about this for my mom every time she calls to have me fix her Win95 installation.
Exactly. The conclusion to the logic of the first statement (If anything goes wrong with X11...) is that either a) nothing goes wrong with Windows, or b) the user can fix problems with Windows.
Both of these are incorrect conclusions. Things *will* go wrong whether you use Windows or X. The difference is, how will *you* fix it, when you don't have physical access to it. It's not a problem to fix X. Windows is just slightly more complicated? (Can anyone tell me how it's done?...)
...To Microsoft. They really don't care about "Open Source", they just want to cash in. So they'll figure out some way that they can be able to say that it is Open Source, without the actually disadvantages of open source. (Which means letting others freely use the code) Then when they fail to take over the market *still*, they'll just cry that Open Source really doesn't work.
If I know Microsoft, they'll want to keep their Monopoly, even if they open the source code. This isn't going to be like Linux, where all distributors have an equal field. Even if MS allows redistribution, they'll be very convincing that you'd better use their version, or it *may* be incompatible.
Yes, the same argument about whether it's a good idea to split Windows up into mulitple closed source companies. No difference with Microsoft.
Actually, this is the most important "feature" an OS should have that is going to be used by newbies. If I am going to get a friend set up on a computer to do e-mail or something, I don't want to have to drive a half an hour, just to fix an icon or something.
2) Complete lock down of all necessary components so that Grandpa can feel free to go crazy on the computer and be assured that it won't break.
I give friends who want to learn Linux a telnet account on by box. One of the first questions they ask is, "What if I break something?" Ah, for those used to Windows, the concept of not being able to cripple the box as a normal user is a strange on indeed. I tell them that if they are able to mess up the box, they have advanced past the novice stage:)
Put it in the hands of 1000's of people, it's bound to come back much better. Cuts his costs and maybe keeps CE in the game.
Of *course* that's what he wants. But is that what he'll get? I doubt it. First of all, if it's even open source, it will not be *free*. You'll be able to patch it for Microsoft, but not use/redistribute it yourself.
Who's going to just give their code away for free, with no retribution? Not me, I want something in return for my work. I want total redistribution rights, to begin with.
So MS will open source CE, and it'll be a dismal failure. Berst will then write an article pointing out that all the hype about Open Source was wrong. *sigh*
The standard X-variation GUIs are just as hard to learn as Win98, and still require the user to know such things as windows, scroll bars, maximization and minimization.
I strongly disagree with that. I've worked with people who use a computer for nothing more then e-mail and word-processing and know nothing about Computers or Windows or anything.
Ah, the problems you have to work around. Even the paper clip stumps them. Whenever the paper clip dude pops up, they are stuck until I can come over and close it. I have to replace keyboards with ones with no Windows key. Again, when they accidentely hit the Windows key and the start menu pops up, all work stops until I go over there and get rid of it.
There's no concept of "minimizing". The application may as well not exist in minimized form. Everytime a new window pops up, unasked for, work quits until I close it. Windows is counter-intuitive. Sure, you can "learn" it like anything else, but you really don't know what it's like until you get someone to use it who's never seen a computer before and wants to do something that should be a simple task.
Nope, get Linux on the box, with icons for only the apps that are to be used. No worries about being able to break anything or get "lost". That's the way to do it.
After seeing Microsoft's actions for the last year, and the inability to "punish" Microsoft for it's wrong doings, I am about fed up. What is a good country that I can move to that has a *real* free market?
I must say, I see nothing improper about this. It looks to me like a simple self-defense move. They're doing everything they can to avoid getting screwed over. If the DoJ is going to harass them, why shouldn't they fight back?
In other news...
REDMOND, Wash. - Oct. 15, 1999 -- In direct response to continuing actions by the Department of Justice, the Microsoft Corp. announced today that it will be acquiring the federal government of the United States of America for an undisclosed sum.
"It's actually a logical extension of our planned growth," said Microsoft chairman Bill Gates, "Microsoft is committed to doing whatever it takes to keep ahead in the cut-throat market that we are in today." Microsoft representatives held a briefing in the oval office of the White House with U.S. President Bill Clinton, and assured members of the press that changes will be "minimal." The United States will be managed as a wholly owned division of Microsoft. An initial public offering is planned for July of next year, and the federal government is expected to be profitable by "Q4 1999 at latest", according to Microsoft president Steve Ballmer.
In a related announcement, Bill Clinton stated that he had "willingly and enthusiastically" accepted a position as a vice president with Microsoft, and will continue to manage the United States government, reporting directly to Bill Gates. When asked how it felt to give up the mantle of executive authority to Gates, Clinton smiled and referred to it as "a relief". He went on to say that Gates has a "proven track record", and that U.S. citizens should offer Gates their "full support and confidence". Clinton will reportedly be earning several times the $200,000 annually he has earned as U.S. president, in his new role at Microsoft.
Gates dismissed a suggestion that the U.S. Capitol be moved to Redmond as "silly", though did say that he would make executive decisions for the U.S. government from his existing office at Microsoft headquarters. Gates went on to say that the House and Senate would "of course" be abolished.
"Microsoft isn't a democracy", he observed, "and look how well we're doing".
When asked if the rumored attendant acquisition of Canada was proceeding, Gates said, "We don't deny that discussions are taking place".
Microsoft representatives closed the conference by stating that United States citizens will be able to expect lower taxes, increases in government services and discounts on all Microsoft products.
About Microsoft
Founded in 1975, Microsoft (NASDAQ "MSFT") is the worldwide leader in software for personal computers, and democratic government. The company offers a wide range of products and services for public, business and personal use, each designed with the mission of making it easier and more enjoyable for people to take advantage of the full power of personal computing and free society every day.
About the United States
Founded in 1789, the United States of America is the most successful nation in the history of the world, and has been a beacon of democracy and opportunity for over 200 years. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., the United States is a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation.
Microsoft makes no secret of the fact that it takes antitrust legislation to be a breach of free-market principles.
Yeah, that's right. If Free Market principles mean that you control your market, and have the capability of preventing competition.
Countless scholars and professionals have weighed in with agreement, and even Scott McNealy -- outside of his vested interest in the downfall of Microsoft -- holds to strong free-market principles.
Yes, holds to free-market principles that *anyone* is free to compete in the market. Not that one company is free to make it so that no one else can compete in the market.
Funny how principles change when you realize that the government can be manipulated into doing your dirty work...
Are you saying that Microsoft's principles changed? Because any other conclusion just isn't logical. It *is* the governments job to see that the market stays free. Otherwise, you just have a tyranny, just not a political one, but an economic tyrant.
Slashdot Mirror
What's even worse is the latest print copy of _ent_magazine_ (The Independent Newspaper for Windows NT Computing) has a front page article on Intel's 64bit chip where they quote: "Intel announced its newest chip, Itanium, which was previously known as Merced. Several OEMs, however, are sticking with their current architecture."
They seem to imply that the OEMs are foolish for continuing to use their own 64bit chips when now Intel has a *real* 64bit processor. As if for some reason Intel is a saviour. Yes, we can now replace our crummy 64bit chips with superior Intel ones. Oh, wow!
I predict we'll see this kind of argument more in the future. "Well, you'll want to use Intel's chip because they are better then others that have been out longer. Nonsense. However, this will make other chips cheaper, thank goodness.
Of course, by the time 64bit chips are common-place the other "OEM's" will be using 128bit chips...
-Brent--
No, and I don't expect them to fix their problems with Windows either. There are 2 types of people. People who want to learn the OS, and how it works and stuff. And people how don't want to (and shouldn't need to) know what to do when something breaks.
For the first group of people I'd teach them Linux. And for the second group of people I'd set up Linux, configure, and support it for them.
-Brent--
Sorry, Microsoft has Open-sourced Windows CE yet.
In the meantime, I'm helping to develop, for myself, a top-rate web browser.
Many cheers to Netscape, and AOL, for facilitating such a wonderful project, that will do so many things for me.
-Brent--
Of course you don't see yourself using it in any real situation. It's just a "for fun" thing to do. Lighten up, okay?
Some responses make you think this is expected to replace top.
-Brent--
Yes.
From their README
-Brent--
VNC might be an *okay* solution. At least you have *something* to work with. But what about copying new files to the box. You've got to install an ftp server. How about if you are someplace that doesn't have a graphical console? Now you've got to install an rsh server. Maybe you want to use ssh for security? How do I tunnel VNC through an ip masq box?
I still think that for real remote administration you can't get Windows to perform. And that doesn't even get down to other issues like scripting. A lot of tasks can be automated in Linux with scripts. And more can be set up in a web page so that you can have bookmarks for all the improtant tasks. Instead of teaching a user how to connect/disconnect from the internet using to different places, you've got a bookmark to a page that let's them manage the internet connection
-Brent--
There are a million downsides to any OS. The minute you give someone Windows, they'll be calling you up because they can't get Gadzuper 99 running on their computer. Of course, it only comes in a Mac version. Or you give them a Mac, and now they want to install a Windows program. Or they just *have* to have this cool program. But it only runs under Linux.
You can't have everything. Especially when it somes to applications. For an extremely "idiot" user, where they just want to do a limited number of things, I'd put applications far down on the list to evaluating a solution. Near the top I'd put, Can the user easily get "lost"/corrupt the system, and can I easily maintain it.
-Brent--
So wise guy, my grandma calls, she's having a problem with Outlook Express. It has the wrong return e-mail address. Yes, she messed this up and didn't know what she did to fix it.
I can
- a) Try to walk her through the accounts menu and fix it.
Oh, I can't do 'c' in Windows, can I? She could get e-mail and surf the web in either Windows or Linux with no real difference to her. She doesn't care the least what an OS is, or what OS she uses as long as she gets her e-mail. So, what's the better solution? I'm sure you'll be able to figure this simple logic out, eh? -Brentb) Drive an hour, one way over there and fix it.
c) Log into her computer and change it.
--
What benefit does litestep give you over the regular WM? Litestep is suppose to give you *more* complexity, not less.
Second, you still have to problem with no remote administration tools.
-Brent--
This is actually not bad advice. If it's good enough, why change it, right? However I don't see the point in this...
then hand him your pager number and say "if you ever need help, give me a call Grandpa."When Grandpa calls, what are you going to do? If you had installed Linux, the problem would have been solved because you could log into the box and fix it. But there's no remote administration with Windows. So when Grandpa calls, there's not one thing you can do. No, sorry, forget about walking him through anything, it's not going to happen.
Usually, if they have to have Windows and they call with a problem, the best I can tell them is 'reboot and take two asprin'.
-Brent--
They released KDE while you were out...
don't force Linux to do what it is currently ill equipted to do, that will only give it a bad name.Actually, Linux is very well equiped to serve as a stable platform that novice users can't mess up. It gives them a full graphical environment allowing them to do anything they want with one click of the mouse. It also provides the strongest remote administration ability, which is *vital* when being used by people who don't want to learn how to maintain their own PC. Which is the case for most consumers, I might add.
-Brent--
Grandpa doesn't want to *do* anything with the OS. He wants to surf the web, get e-mail, and other similar standard applications. Grandpa isn't interested in the registry, he isn't interested in virtual memory, or other settings. He isn't interested in installing software on his own. He just wants a computer that he can turn on, click an icon, and go.
The Linux How-To's are a joke when used by a complete newbie, and most of the computer articles in the newspapers,Grandpa doesn't want to learn become a system admin, for heavens sakes. He just wants to get his e-mail and surf the web. He's not going to be reading any how-tos, or even any books on Windows.
Use whatever is best for the job. In my personal experiance, Linux isn't exactly the most user friendly OS, which is what your Grandfather would need.In this case, Linux is best for the job. Set up KDE with the icons on the desktop. Grandpa turns on the PC, clicks the e-mail icon, and reads his e-mail. *That* my friend is real user-friendliness. He doesn't have to worry about breaking anything, because Linux has real security. And when something breaks, or he wants something changed or added (which will happen on Windows too), it is a simple thing to remotely administer a Linux box.
Which is summed up as, Grandpa will be happy, not only because he can do what he wants, but also because he can call grandson to keep it that way with no hassles.
-Brent--
Okay, *you* explain how Grandpa is going to "fix" a problem with a computer that he doesn't know more about then how to click an icon and type?
Sorry, it doesn't matter that it's an iMac. Computers don't magically become easier to fix, just because they were designed for the consumer.
Young grandson is going to get the call to fix whatever is wrong with the computer whether it's Linux or MacOS. Which do you think is the easier OS to remotely support?
Remember, Grandpa doesn't know what the OS is, and doesn't care. All he wants to do is to browse the web and get e-mail.
-Brent--
Exactly. The conclusion to the logic of the first statement (If anything goes wrong with X11...) is that either a) nothing goes wrong with Windows, or b) the user can fix problems with Windows.
Both of these are incorrect conclusions. Things *will* go wrong whether you use Windows or X. The difference is, how will *you* fix it, when you don't have physical access to it. It's not a problem to fix X. Windows is just slightly more complicated? (Can anyone tell me how it's done? ...)
-Brent--
...To Microsoft. They really don't care about "Open Source", they just want to cash in. So they'll figure out some way that they can be able to say that it is Open Source, without the actually disadvantages of open source. (Which means letting others freely use the code) Then when they fail to take over the market *still*, they'll just cry that Open Source really doesn't work.
If I know Microsoft, they'll want to keep their Monopoly, even if they open the source code. This isn't going to be like Linux, where all distributors have an equal field. Even if MS allows redistribution, they'll be very convincing that you'd better use their version, or it *may* be incompatible.
Yes, the same argument about whether it's a good idea to split Windows up into mulitple closed source companies. No difference with Microsoft.
-Brent--
Actually, this is the most important "feature" an OS should have that is going to be used by newbies. If I am going to get a friend set up on a computer to do e-mail or something, I don't want to have to drive a half an hour, just to fix an icon or something.
2) Complete lock down of all necessary components so that Grandpa can feel free to go crazy on the computer and be assured that it won't break.I give friends who want to learn Linux a telnet account on by box. One of the first questions they ask is, "What if I break something?" Ah, for those used to Windows, the concept of not being able to cripple the box as a normal user is a strange on indeed. I tell them that if they are able to mess up the box, they have advanced past the novice stage :)
-Brent--
Of *course* that's what he wants. But is that what he'll get? I doubt it. First of all, if it's even open source, it will not be *free*. You'll be able to patch it for Microsoft, but not use/redistribute it yourself.
Who's going to just give their code away for free, with no retribution? Not me, I want something in return for my work. I want total redistribution rights, to begin with.
So MS will open source CE, and it'll be a dismal failure. Berst will then write an article pointing out that all the hype about Open Source was wrong. *sigh*
-Brent--
I strongly disagree with that. I've worked with people who use a computer for nothing more then e-mail and word-processing and know nothing about Computers or Windows or anything.
Ah, the problems you have to work around. Even the paper clip stumps them. Whenever the paper clip dude pops up, they are stuck until I can come over and close it. I have to replace keyboards with ones with no Windows key. Again, when they accidentely hit the Windows key and the start menu pops up, all work stops until I go over there and get rid of it.
There's no concept of "minimizing". The application may as well not exist in minimized form. Everytime a new window pops up, unasked for, work quits until I close it. Windows is counter-intuitive. Sure, you can "learn" it like anything else, but you really don't know what it's like until you get someone to use it who's never seen a computer before and wants to do something that should be a simple task.
Nope, get Linux on the box, with icons for only the apps that are to be used. No worries about being able to break anything or get "lost". That's the way to do it.
-Brent--
Ah, finally someone with some intuition.
Although the prevalent accusation is that Linux users are incessant in proclaiming the goodness of their OS, Microsoft Bigots are often more so.
-Brent--
After seeing Microsoft's actions for the last year, and the inability to "punish" Microsoft for it's wrong doings, I am about fed up. What is a good country that I can move to that has a *real* free market?
-Brent--
While stongly assuring us that this won't affect the FBI's investigations of Mafia doings
-Brent--
In other news...
--
Yeah, that's right. If Free Market principles mean that you control your market, and have the capability of preventing competition.
Countless scholars and professionals have weighed in with agreement, and even Scott McNealy -- outside of his vested interest in the downfall of Microsoft -- holds to strong free-market principles.Yes, holds to free-market principles that *anyone* is free to compete in the market. Not that one company is free to make it so that no one else can compete in the market.
Funny how principles change when you realize that the government can be manipulated into doing your dirty work...Are you saying that Microsoft's principles changed? Because any other conclusion just isn't logical. It *is* the governments job to see that the market stays free. Otherwise, you just have a tyranny, just not a political one, but an economic tyrant.
-Brent--
I think I just spurted Mountain Dew out of both nostrils or something.
That was great.
-Brent--
This may be a stretch, but are you running gpm? If so, kill it and see if that helps take care of the crashes.
-Brent--