Seriously, small children not only see breasts every day, they often SUCK on them! What exactly are we protecting children from by censoring nudity (breasts in this case)? Now, censoring gratuitous sex I can almost understand, but simple nudity? Come on.
Well, if this property holds true for the universe, and eventually our universe will expand a whole lot and lead to a new bang, exactly where in the known universe will this bang occur?
How many average OSX users have an account in the admin group? Did you forget we were talking about average users?
The initial user is in the admin group. And since average users only have that one account...
Without an account in the admin group, you need to know the root user's password in OSX. Just like you need to know the Administrator's password in Vista.
The average user does have an account in the admin group.
In a sense, I like Vista's explanation dialog. It tells you why you need to type in a password. The explanations need to be dumbed down a bit, though
You mean like in OS X?
where clicking no makes the box larger and adds a username/password dialog.
The trick is more into getting the user to read the dialog each and every time it pops up...
The "trick" to gettign users to read the dialogs is to not display it often. Again, like in OS X.
It is 100% the fault of developers. Microsoft have been telling developers to write LUA-friendly apps for nearly 10 years now.
I'm just saying that "telling" developers to do the rigth thing isn't quite enough. That kind of thing needs to be either enforced or the right way nees to be clear in the API. Other systems manage it. Are Windows developers just especially stubborn and rebelious?
It is too bad Microsoft never had to the courage to just start a new API from scatch. Instead they chose to make almost everything backwards compatable. And now they have a monster API set that few people know how to use correctly.
And the same dictionary defines an "application" as "A computer program with a user interface." Going by the strictest application of this definition, even a spreadsheet isn't a "document" in the common sense of the word, as each cell may contain a declarative program written in the spreadsheet app's formula language and executable in the spreadsheet app's built-in interpreter.
Oh give me a f**kin' break. I'm not goign to play these semantic games. When you write a game, put the save files wherever you please. You can put them in C:\ for all I care.
A good rule of thumb for me would be: If the program presents the user with a save file dialog (either once or every time), it is appropriate to default to My Documents. If it is an automated file write operation and the files are not intended for the average user to manipulate (move, rename, delete, email), then they belong in an Applicaiton Data directory. The point being that the user should not see anything in My Documents that he or she did not explicitly put there.
Perhaps an argument by analogy might help: Where should a Linux game's saved states go?
Usually they go in a "hidden" folder inside the home directory for the user. I've also seen them in a global game data directory such that special process permissions are required write the files. Not a good idea IMO, because it poses security problems. The point being that, in linux, saved game data is usually not treated as user documents.
ObTopic: Unless this dilemma between Application Data and My Documents is solved, Windows game developers will just not bother changing the saving code that currently writes to Program Files, Windows games will continue to require administrator privileges, and Windows games will continue to pop up the sudo style dialog boxes described by The Article.
You do realize that the "Application Data" folder is not shared between users, don't you?
My Documents is intended for documents that the user will manipulate directly. That includes renaming and moving to subfolders. If you do either one of those things to saved games, the game will have problems. Saved games belong in Application Data.
What is the difference between application data and documents? Do you accept this definition [msdn.com] or another definition? And based on your definition, why would you call a saved game state "application data"?
Because it is data not intended to be viewed or manipulated by the user directly.
As far as I can tell, a saved game state documents your progress in a campaign.
While a save file may "document" my progress in a game, it isn't a document in any common sense of the word. BTW, Oblivion is also storing ini files in My Documents. From what I read on that blog entry, it sounds like lots of applicaitons are "bending" the meaning of My Documents such that it is cluttering the folder up. Not that filesystem clutter isn't par for the course in Windows as a general rule....
Worse yet, what is the difference between "local settings" and "application data"?
AFAIK, Local Settings is "per-user per-machine" data. It isn't included as roaming profiles. And I contains its own "Application Data" folder. It is intended for non-critical files like caches.
All that said, I don't really care. It isn't like I am using Windows for much more than playing games. When I'm done playing the game, it is back into the dark depths of Linux I go...
Well, I hope they aren't putting save files in My Documents because that is for... uh.. my documents, right? I noticed that Oblivion does this. Kinda dumb if you ask me.
According to TFA, there are several dialogs that Vista will put you through which will unnecessarily confuse users. OS X has a single dialog that just asks for your password. You don't even need to know the password for another user (unless you are not in the admin group).
The problem is that everyone is used to just being a local admin on their box,
That, and programs that shouldn't require admin do require admin. This is partially the fault of developers but MS is also to blame for not enforcing such things or at least making them clear in the API.
XP has some good security features, the problem, as always, is the interface between the chair and the keyboard. XP has some good security features, the problem, as always, is the interface between the chair and the keyboard.
Seriously, the problem is with Windows. Once you start blaming the majority of users for the failing of the system, you know it is the system that is broken, not the users. Mac users seem to have no such problems. Are they smarter? Nope. It is because the security model is simple on the Mac. "Oh, I see you want to do something that needs admin privs, type your password here." And it doesn't come up when it shouldn't. Simple and effective. No teaching users when to, and when not to use a "RunAs" feature. It is an unnecessary step in other systems. Vista has apparently gone the opposite direction by promting users with all kinds security related windows and dialogs. Big mistake.
My cousins, all under the age of 12 use the web-browser for everything. They play games through it, they chat through it,
Don't they also use browser independant IM programs? Look closer, I'm sure there is more goign on there than just a browser. Do they do any P2P file sharing? How about music? Winamp? Windows Media Player? iTunes? Do they burn CDs with their browser or manage their iPod with a browser?
they meet people through it. If they could do word-processing online, and thus not have to transport files all the time etc. they would.
When they want to play more in depth games, that'll change. Try playing WoW in a browser. As for not transporting files all the time, why couldn't they pop open Wordpad and save to a GDrive or that Amazon storage system? And why are the transporting files "all the time?"
Also, as mobile computing (laptops and possibly other full featured devices) become more ubiqutous, browser based word processing looks even more ridiculous. What is getting "old" is not the desktop applicaiton, but rather, the static desktop computer.
How about USB/bluetooth storage built into a mobile phone? Since almost everyone, including 12 year olds, seem to have cell phones on them at all times anyway, why not just store documents there? Eventually devices like cell phones will CONTAIN word processors. Just plug it into a "docking" station to get full display and input devices and you are good to go... from anywhere.
20-30 year olds are pretty much the same in the non-geek crowd. But I know less of the non-geek ones and only get the impression through reading studies.
What studies?
Nobody needs feature-richness, they just don't want to piss about with files or installers.
And yet they persist in installing MS Office rather than just use the pre-installed Wordpad or some other cheap/free light word processors out there. Now, if you could show that people were just using the pre-installed word processors versus "pissing about with files or installers," then you might have a piont, but as it is, people seem to be perfectly willing to install local applications for certain things.
And the web-browsing UI metaphor seems more comfortable to people than general software metaphors. Although I don't personally find this, a lot of people obviously do when you watch them clicking away fully at ease with new webpages.
You know what's funny, you could almost say the same thing about Emacs users. If you've ever spent any time using emacs or known any hardcore emacs users, you'd know there there are all kinds of little applications (besides editting) that you can run in Emacs. There is even a mini-webbrowser and Tetris. Although I think many of these things are more or less novelties rather than something emacs users actually use. Even hardcore Emacs users still use a regular web browser... just like hardcore web surfers still open up a word processor (or locally installed game, or P2P client, etc) every now and then.
Just because you like and use all the obscure formatting, viewing, display and 'proofreading' features in MS/Open/Star Office doesn't mean there's not a huge user base that has no knowledge of and no use for any of it and who could get by just fine with Wordpad.
Then let them get by with Wordpad. If we're just talking about an online Wordpad, that is a little different. But only a little different. Since any modern OS pretty much ships with something resembling Wordpad, the "huge user base" should be satisfied. Creating a version that is online has minimal appeal.
Furthermore, the ability to do so on a document that can be accessed from anywhere,
Edit in Wordpad and save it to a Google "GDrive" or that Amazon net storage system. It couldn't be much easier. And I hear they've got these keychain USB drives on which you could probably store a few, if not several documents! And you can use any program you want! If you're using a Mac, you could even store your favorite word processor on the USB keychain.
or by multiple people at once
Sounds problematic and unneeded by 99% of people editting documents.
would be far more appealing than any bloated Office Suite(tm) to the vast majority of people using MS office.
And yet they continue to use MS Office despite the fact that, again, Wordpad or something similar ships with every modern desktop OS. Face it, people, for whatever reason, prefer to use a bloated Office suite for day to day word processing. To switch to a browser based suite would be nothing short of a downgrade. Say what you will about MS Office bloat, that kind of functionality in the browser using existing technology would be unusable.
I would contend that a word processor is stupid. Why would someone use that when they could produce beautiful output with a typesetter, or just use plain text?
These are rhetorical questions which have had an effect opposite of what was intended by trying to make something look stupid which is obviously not. People use word processors because typesetting is not suited for casual use and plain text is just, well, plain text. That is not stupid.
Sometimes people want stupid things.
I don't think people want a browser based office suite. Especially when there is a free, cross-platform office suite available now. Maybe you AJAX hype-whores should try to create NEW applications and services rather than just port existing stuff to the browser. Here's a hint: start with something that is essentially network based or shared. Word processing is not it!
Therefore the user doesn't have to access the data over "slow links", suffer latency issues
I can hardly think of an application that would suffer more latency and "slow link" issues than an office suite running via AJAX in a web browser. Nobody is going to want to use it. Well, I guess an AJAX version of Worlds of Warcraft might be worse... but hey, you can play it from anywhere and you don't have to worry about your character getting out of synce between... oh, wait, WoW manages to keep data in a central location AND take advantage of a local application, imagine that...
Having the application locally and the data somewhere else is just so old.
That's just it, the application is still "local" in the "AJAX Office" world, and the data is still "somewhere else." The whole point of AJAX is to pawn off a lot of work to the client. By the time you're done downloading all the javascript, HTML, and CSS to run the behemoth, you're no better off than you were when you were running the application from teh "Start" menu of your operating system. And in many ways you are worse off because now you have network dependencies. No offline work. Why add network dependencies to something that isn't essentially network oriented? Not to mention the fact that there is currently no good way to build a robust application such as an Office suite inside a browser. Whatever technology you are talking about just doesn't exist.
Terminal service like feature set without vendor lock-in
It is the ultimate vendor lock-in when you start storing your data with a specific external entity. In the current office environment, one can easily swap out MS Office for OpenOffice (given good enough OpenOffice support for MS file formats). With a browser based office suite, small companies have almost no way to tailor the applicaitons because it is all managed by the vendor you've locked in with! Do you think they are going to make it easy for you to pick up and switch to another vendor?
Look, I realize that Microsoft is big, but comparing it to the collapse of an empire is just silly. I mean, the fall of an empire has real tangible effect on people's lives. A switch of operating systems is trivial in comparison.
Some of these "AJAX" apps are downright useful, and for the casual user, can completely replace their office suites in functionality (for their purposes), and then some (remote, network accessible from anywhere).
You're a moron. The very idea that anyone (or a significant number of people) would want to use a browser based office suite is just... stupid. There is really no polite way to put it. Not only is the technology for it just not there, but the whole idea is just dumb. Who needs to use an office suite "from anywhere?" Do you find yourself in Internet cafes just dying to open up Excel so you can go over your employer's sales figures? Guess what? The kind of people who need to do this sort of thing already have laptops with MS Office installed. And If, for some reason, they can't afford MS Office, there is OpenOffice.
Who in their right mind would give up a full featured, locally installed, copy of MS Office for some browser based, Javascript powered, HTML monstrosity? Say what you want about MS Office and bloat, but a browser based version would be 1000 times worse. Ajax applications only make sense when dealing with network sensitive information and services such as email, which doesn't even require ajax.
The amazing irony in all of this is Microsoft invented what may end up being the Silver Bullet that defeats them (XMLHTTPREQUEST). And, finally, maybe market forces will level the playing field.
No, the amazing irony in all of this (AJAX powered desktop-like appliations) is that it was already tried before with Java applets.
What MS needs is a government sponsored War on Microsoft Software. That'll not only perpetuate the problem, but make it worse. AND it will drive up the price! The downside is that you will never be sure how potent the Vista will be. Could be Ultimate or Media Center edition.. who knows. Lots of kids will die from overdose because they are used to installing Home Edition.
Aren't MS hotfixes usually pretty small? Service packs are big because they contain so many changes. It is difficult to "diff" a binary and it only works if you have a specific version of a binary installed (which most systems don't). And on Linux, you almost always have to download full packages to update. I would say it is linux that has this "problem," not Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, small children not only see breasts every day, they often SUCK on them! What exactly are we protecting children from by censoring nudity (breasts in this case)? Now, censoring gratuitous sex I can almost understand, but simple nudity? Come on.
-matthew
Well, if this property holds true for the universe, and eventually our universe will expand a whole lot and lead to a new bang, exactly where in the known universe will this bang occur?
Everywhere.
-matthew
Quite a few games and emulators for Windows use this method. Now we're in violent agreement.
*shrug*
Most games I play on Windows simply have save slots with no file selection.
-matthew
Does putting a carrot in front of an SUV make it get better gas mileage?
How many average OSX users have an account in the admin group? Did you forget we were talking about average users?
The initial user is in the admin group. And since average users only have that one account...
Without an account in the admin group, you need to know the root user's password in OSX. Just like you need to know the Administrator's password in Vista.
The average user does have an account in the admin group.
In a sense, I like Vista's explanation dialog. It tells you why you need to type in a password. The explanations need to be dumbed down a bit, though
You mean like in OS X?
where clicking no makes the box larger and adds a username/password dialog.
The trick is more into getting the user to read the dialog each and every time it pops up...
The "trick" to gettign users to read the dialogs is to not display it often. Again, like in OS X.
-matthew
It is 100% the fault of developers. Microsoft have been telling developers to write LUA-friendly apps for nearly 10 years now.
I'm just saying that "telling" developers to do the rigth thing isn't quite enough. That kind of thing needs to be either enforced or the right way nees to be clear in the API. Other systems manage it. Are Windows developers just especially stubborn and rebelious?
It is too bad Microsoft never had to the courage to just start a new API from scatch. Instead they chose to make almost everything backwards compatable. And now they have a monster API set that few people know how to use correctly.
-matthew
And the same dictionary defines an "application" as "A computer program with a user interface." Going by the strictest application of this definition, even a spreadsheet isn't a "document" in the common sense of the word, as each cell may contain a declarative program written in the spreadsheet app's formula language and executable in the spreadsheet app's built-in interpreter.
Oh give me a f**kin' break. I'm not goign to play these semantic games. When you write a game, put the save files wherever you please. You can put them in C:\ for all I care.
A good rule of thumb for me would be: If the program presents the user with a save file dialog (either once or every time), it is appropriate to default to My Documents. If it is an automated file write operation and the files are not intended for the average user to manipulate (move, rename, delete, email), then they belong in an Applicaiton Data directory. The point being that the user should not see anything in My Documents that he or she did not explicitly put there.
Perhaps an argument by analogy might help: Where should a Linux game's saved states go?
Usually they go in a "hidden" folder inside the home directory for the user. I've also seen them in a global game data directory such that special process permissions are required write the files. Not a good idea IMO, because it poses security problems. The point being that, in linux, saved game data is usually not treated as user documents.
ObTopic: Unless this dilemma between Application Data and My Documents is solved, Windows game developers will just not bother changing the saving code that currently writes to Program Files, Windows games will continue to require administrator privileges, and Windows games will continue to pop up the sudo style dialog boxes described by The Article.
Then they're idiots.
-matthew
You do realize that the "Application Data" folder is not shared between users, don't you?
My Documents is intended for documents that the user will manipulate directly. That includes renaming and moving to subfolders. If you do either one of those things to saved games, the game will have problems. Saved games belong in Application Data.
-matthew
What is the difference between application data and documents? Do you accept this definition [msdn.com] or another definition? And based on your definition, why would you call a saved game state "application data"?
Because it is data not intended to be viewed or manipulated by the user directly.
As far as I can tell, a saved game state documents your progress in a campaign.
While a save file may "document" my progress in a game, it isn't a document in any common sense of the word. BTW, Oblivion is also storing ini files in My Documents. From what I read on that blog entry, it sounds like lots of applicaitons are "bending" the meaning of My Documents such that it is cluttering the folder up. Not that filesystem clutter isn't par for the course in Windows as a general rule....
Worse yet, what is the difference between "local settings" and "application data"?
AFAIK, Local Settings is "per-user per-machine" data. It isn't included as roaming profiles. And I contains its own "Application Data" folder. It is intended for non-critical files like caches.
All that said, I don't really care. It isn't like I am using Windows for much more than playing games. When I'm done playing the game, it is back into the dark depths of Linux I go...
-matthew
Uh, no. They are applicaiton data.
-matthew
Well, I hope they aren't putting save files in My Documents because that is for... uh.. my documents, right? I noticed that Oblivion does this. Kinda dumb if you ask me.
-matthew
According to TFA, there are several dialogs that Vista will put you through which will unnecessarily confuse users. OS X has a single dialog that just asks for your password. You don't even need to know the password for another user (unless you are not in the admin group).
-matthew
The problem is that everyone is used to just being a local admin on their box,
That, and programs that shouldn't require admin do require admin. This is partially the fault of developers but MS is also to blame for not enforcing such things or at least making them clear in the API.
XP has some good security features, the problem, as always, is the interface between the chair and the keyboard. XP has some good security features, the problem, as always, is the interface between the chair and the keyboard.
Seriously, the problem is with Windows. Once you start blaming the majority of users for the failing of the system, you know it is the system that is broken, not the users. Mac users seem to have no such problems. Are they smarter? Nope. It is because the security model is simple on the Mac. "Oh, I see you want to do something that needs admin privs, type your password here." And it doesn't come up when it shouldn't. Simple and effective. No teaching users when to, and when not to use a "RunAs" feature. It is an unnecessary step in other systems. Vista has apparently gone the opposite direction by promting users with all kinds security related windows and dialogs. Big mistake.
-matthew
No. Not at all. It isn't like existing installations would just stop working and government would come to a halt.
-matthew
My cousins, all under the age of 12 use the web-browser for everything. They play games through it, they chat through it,
Don't they also use browser independant IM programs? Look closer, I'm sure there is more goign on there than just a browser. Do they do any P2P file sharing? How about music? Winamp? Windows Media Player? iTunes? Do they burn CDs with their browser or manage their iPod with a browser?
they meet people through it. If they could do word-processing online, and thus not have to transport files all the time etc. they would.
When they want to play more in depth games, that'll change. Try playing WoW in a browser. As for not transporting files all the time, why couldn't they pop open Wordpad and save to a GDrive or that Amazon storage system? And why are the transporting files "all the time?"
Also, as mobile computing (laptops and possibly other full featured devices) become more ubiqutous, browser based word processing looks even more ridiculous. What is getting "old" is not the desktop applicaiton, but rather, the static desktop computer.
How about USB/bluetooth storage built into a mobile phone? Since almost everyone, including 12 year olds, seem to have cell phones on them at all times anyway, why not just store documents there? Eventually devices like cell phones will CONTAIN word processors. Just plug it into a "docking" station to get full display and input devices and you are good to go... from anywhere.
20-30 year olds are pretty much the same in the non-geek crowd. But I know less of the non-geek ones and only get the impression through reading studies.
What studies?
Nobody needs feature-richness, they just don't want to piss about with files or installers.
And yet they persist in installing MS Office rather than just use the pre-installed Wordpad or some other cheap/free light word processors out there. Now, if you could show that people were just using the pre-installed word processors versus "pissing about with files or installers," then you might have a piont, but as it is, people seem to be perfectly willing to install local applications for certain things.
And the web-browsing UI metaphor seems more comfortable to people than general software metaphors. Although I don't personally find this, a lot of people obviously do when you watch them clicking away fully at ease with new webpages.
You know what's funny, you could almost say the same thing about Emacs users. If you've ever spent any time using emacs or known any hardcore emacs users, you'd know there there are all kinds of little applications (besides editting) that you can run in Emacs. There is even a mini-webbrowser and Tetris. Although I think many of these things are more or less novelties rather than something emacs users actually use. Even hardcore Emacs users still use a regular web browser... just like hardcore web surfers still open up a word processor (or locally installed game, or P2P client, etc) every now and then.
-matthew
Inability to substantiate claims noted. I'm laughing at people like you now.
Just because you like and use all the obscure formatting, viewing, display and 'proofreading' features in MS/Open/Star Office doesn't mean there's not a huge user base that has no knowledge of and no use for any of it and who could get by just fine with Wordpad.
Then let them get by with Wordpad. If we're just talking about an online Wordpad, that is a little different. But only a little different. Since any modern OS pretty much ships with something resembling Wordpad, the "huge user base" should be satisfied. Creating a version that is online has minimal appeal.
Furthermore, the ability to do so on a document that can be accessed from anywhere,
Edit in Wordpad and save it to a Google "GDrive" or that Amazon net storage system. It couldn't be much easier. And I hear they've got these keychain USB drives on which you could probably store a few, if not several documents! And you can use any program you want! If you're using a Mac, you could even store your favorite word processor on the USB keychain.
or by multiple people at once
Sounds problematic and unneeded by 99% of people editting documents.
would be far more appealing than any bloated Office Suite(tm) to the vast majority of people using MS office.
And yet they continue to use MS Office despite the fact that, again, Wordpad or something similar ships with every modern desktop OS. Face it, people, for whatever reason, prefer to use a bloated Office suite for day to day word processing. To switch to a browser based suite would be nothing short of a downgrade. Say what you will about MS Office bloat, that kind of functionality in the browser using existing technology would be unusable.
-matthew
I would contend that a word processor is stupid. Why would someone use that when they could produce beautiful output with a typesetter, or just use plain text?
These are rhetorical questions which have had an effect opposite of what was intended by trying to make something look stupid which is obviously not. People use word processors because typesetting is not suited for casual use and plain text is just, well, plain text. That is not stupid.
Sometimes people want stupid things.
I don't think people want a browser based office suite. Especially when there is a free, cross-platform office suite available now. Maybe you AJAX hype-whores should try to create NEW applications and services rather than just port existing stuff to the browser. Here's a hint: start with something that is essentially network based or shared. Word processing is not it!
-matthew
I can hardly think of an application that would suffer more latency and "slow link" issues than an office suite running via AJAX in a web browser. Nobody is going to want to use it. Well, I guess an AJAX version of Worlds of Warcraft might be worse... but hey, you can play it from anywhere and you don't have to worry about your character getting out of synce between... oh, wait, WoW manages to keep data in a central location AND take advantage of a local application, imagine that...
That's just it, the application is still "local" in the "AJAX Office" world, and the data is still "somewhere else." The whole point of AJAX is to pawn off a lot of work to the client. By the time you're done downloading all the javascript, HTML, and CSS to run the behemoth, you're no better off than you were when you were running the application from teh "Start" menu of your operating system. And in many ways you are worse off because now you have network dependencies. No offline work. Why add network dependencies to something that isn't essentially network oriented? Not to mention the fact that there is currently no good way to build a robust application such as an Office suite inside a browser. Whatever technology you are talking about just doesn't exist.
It is the ultimate vendor lock-in when you start storing your data with a specific external entity. In the current office environment, one can easily swap out MS Office for OpenOffice (given good enough OpenOffice support for MS file formats). With a browser based office suite, small companies have almost no way to tailor the applicaitons because it is all managed by the vendor you've locked in with! Do you think they are going to make it easy for you to pick up and switch to another vendor?
-matthew
Look, I realize that Microsoft is big, but comparing it to the collapse of an empire is just silly. I mean, the fall of an empire has real tangible effect on people's lives. A switch of operating systems is trivial in comparison.
-matthew
You're a moron. The very idea that anyone (or a significant number of people) would want to use a browser based office suite is just... stupid. There is really no polite way to put it. Not only is the technology for it just not there, but the whole idea is just dumb. Who needs to use an office suite "from anywhere?" Do you find yourself in Internet cafes just dying to open up Excel so you can go over your employer's sales figures? Guess what? The kind of people who need to do this sort of thing already have laptops with MS Office installed. And If, for some reason, they can't afford MS Office, there is OpenOffice.
Who in their right mind would give up a full featured, locally installed, copy of MS Office for some browser based, Javascript powered, HTML monstrosity? Say what you want about MS Office and bloat, but a browser based version would be 1000 times worse. Ajax applications only make sense when dealing with network sensitive information and services such as email, which doesn't even require ajax.
No, the amazing irony in all of this (AJAX powered desktop-like appliations) is that it was already tried before with Java applets.
-matthew
What MS needs is a government sponsored War on Microsoft Software. That'll not only perpetuate the problem, but make it worse. AND it will drive up the price! The downside is that you will never be sure how potent the Vista will be. Could be Ultimate or Media Center edition.. who knows. Lots of kids will die from overdose because they are used to installing Home Edition.
-matthew
Aren't MS hotfixes usually pretty small? Service packs are big because they contain so many changes. It is difficult to "diff" a binary and it only works if you have a specific version of a binary installed (which most systems don't). And on Linux, you almost always have to download full packages to update. I would say it is linux that has this "problem," not Windows.
-matthew
Oh, sorry, I reread that and saw "or busy compiling kernels." Ok, insulting stereotype approved. Carry on.
-matthew
Are you saying that you actually click on ads or are you just talking about your general online shopping habits?
-matthew