Of course they will be written to standard. They went through the pain once, they would be foolish to make the same mistake twice.
My company has shown no interest in Firefox, Chrome, or any other browser. They are satisfied with the boxed IE solution, and for day to day tasks, it gets the job done, which is, I suspect, enough. It also removes additional work on the legal side and reduces the support footprint. It doesn't require additional NDA's with various browser companies if support issues should arise and all security updates come from the same vendor. We've always been an MS shop, and I don't see that changing significantly any time soon. I was surprised that they are considering a few linux boxes for a few open source applications though. Historically they have avoided linux, so there is always hope.
Eventually support for IE6 will be gone, and that is a concern for corporations. We considered virtualization under Win7 and rejected it for that reason. The out of the box solution to run XP VM is meaningless if XP support dries up, and it doubles the desktop footprint for the support areas. A nightmare in the making.
We are going through the painful process of rewriting and certifying IE6 specific apps and migrating to IE8. Only after that is complete will we migrate to Win 7.
A 'business' does not meet the definition of such a group. A political action group is specifically created to champion the political agenda of it's members and it makes perfect sense that these should have the ability to do so as their members expressly joined such groups for that purpose, and donated money to such groups for that purpose.
A business on the other hand does not take it's employee's opinion into account when they spend corporate money on political action campaigns. I certainly can't tell my company where to spend it's money. I have no voice at all, other than taking a drastic step of leaving my job, and risking my own health and welfare to do so.
The ruling was bad, on all fronts. It is not free speech for a corporation to use it's coffers to 'speak' for employees who in turn have no control over where that money goes.
Not vote multiple times, but if the people of the assembled group wanted to base their vote on a collective decision, then there isn't anything that should stop such a thing. The campaign finance issue holds water in the same respect. The people of the group have allocated their resources and given control over those resources to a few elected leaders (the board). They trust the board to do good things with that money in order to act on their behalf and in their interest
I don't think they care if you modify your XBox. They do care if you break DRM to pirate software. The specific question was why the XBox was not included in the 'jailbreak' exceptions stated by the Librarian of Congress, but smart phones were.
I suspect it's not as simple (or as underhanded) as people are implying. The phone is a utility device, with a long contract, which unlike common 'dumb' phones, cannot be moved from carrier to carrier as was originally intended. The X-Box was never intended to move from entertainment network to entertainment network, nor does it have a sim for just such a purpose.
On one hand we have a device that was design for portability to another carrier, and another device that was never designed for it.
I don't think there is any underhandedness at all. Although they are both a very specific class of computers, they are not the same type of device.
Actually they did see the 'joys of vm', and rejected them outright. I believe the response was that they make apps W7 compatible, rather than sticking a bandaid on it, which in the long run, makes sense. If MS support for XP is gone, and an XP machine in a VM still requires XP support...See the failing there? Some companies actually worry about supporting the OS after the vendor no longer does. Inconvenient I know.
Your '50,000 station deployment' is totally irrelevant to ours, but thanks for the info. I'm happy for you.
Do you seriously believe corporations don't know the capabilities of Windows 7?
That is the point I believe the parent is trying to make. There are too many legacy dependencies, as well as testing for existing apps that has to happen before they can even being to roll out Windows 7. Legal contracts, image standardization, etc. Throw 50,000 users into the mix and you have a very LONG product rollout. We are only now getting to a prod pilot for Windows 7 and they are already talking about Windows 8.
I'm guessing MS has realized that they can milk the OS cash cow every 2 years for a good turnaround for something that will probably resemble a 'service pack +'. What I think they fail to realize is that they are overvaluing the whole 'upgrade' experience in the eye's of IT and also in the eyes of a home user. When the cost of the OS begins to rival or exceed the cost of the hardware you run it on, it's probably a good time to evaluate your product cost.
If XP was a great OS (arguably a great Windows success anyway), to the point where it offers good value, performs well on current and future hardware, and has no major drawbacks, then I suspect MS will face the same problem that they faced with XP upgrades. People just don't want to deal with the mess and expense. Home users will upgrade when they buy a new PC and IT shops will delay as long as possible.
You would think MS would at least allow the existing OS to mature as well as the market to allow a NEED to migrate to develop.
Just because someone prefers an OS with less hassle doesn't mean they are less capable. It just means they are smart for not wanting to fuck with their PC all day to keep it running.
You are also rating the ability to build a PC higher than is needed in the real world. Although it's a useful skill, it's hardly going to be profitable for the average user considering how cheap PC's are these days.
Although it may be popular to bash the 'elite' in political circles, I expect better from/. where elite (as in educated) is the last thing we should be bashing.
A general google search. Check the link I posted and look at the search result numbers, then look at the related searches at the bottom. This is not some obscure issue impacting a few folks. It affects a large number of distributions and is a common setup issue. Even a search within just Google Groups returns 92,000 hits for "Linux Blank Screen". No factor in that Windows has a 99% larger user base than Linux and those numbers look particularly bad.
You misunderstand consumer protection. It has nothing to do with 'market share'.
I don't recall anyone claiming malware could get through the App Store. Hearsay is great and all but if you're going to paint with such broad brush you should provide specifics.
The only example you cite is the CS5 issue, which was properly investigated by the FCC and in turn allowed again, most likely as a direct result of the FCC's 'interest' in the topic. Seems things are working as designed, just as they would if in some bizarro world, Apple were to attempt to lock down an open platform after the fact. It simply would not happen.
And therein lies the flaw in your idea of total lockdown. You find it abhorrent, as will others because as a PC owner (of any flavor), you can buy, install, or try any software you deem worthy. There will always be a need on a PC to be flexible. Although Apple can introduce new products like iOS devices that are locked out of the gate, you can't go into an open product and lock it down after the fact. That would be a huge no-no from a consumer protection standpoint. It just sounds like a baseless scare tactic. Since PC's are a major source of adult entertainment of many varieties (porn, games, social sites), there will always be a market outside of the Apple App Store.
Please provide some instance of some game changing event where everyone said 'that would never happen" and it did, in regards to freedom of the platform? The app store was released locked down to begin with. No change there. Macs were and still are open. No change there either.
No, their iOS devices were sold without any app store or means to get an app on the device. The app store was introduced as-is with the restrictions in place. With a Mac, they have millions of these on the market, and consumers are completely free to install whatever software they like. There is absolutely no way Apple could come in after the fact and force such a change to require everyone to use an app store only. Such suggestions that this would somehow happen are ridiculous on their face.
As has already been published, it will be an optional place to get software. This is NOT the same App Store Only model used on iOS devices.
I DO see this as a huge benefit to the Mac community, as I often look for software to do various things, and if it's not on the sites I frequent like Sourceforge.net, Version Tracker (before downloads.com ruined it), OpenSourceMac.Org, etc), then I'm leery of installing it. The official Apple App store looks to plan to use the same hygenics used in the App Store for iOS, for which I'm grateful.
They've already published the Guidelines for developers and it looks like the same setup (no porn, malware, unpublished API's, etc).
No, they simply depreciated the 'Apple' version of Java, meaning it will probably be discontinued in Lion. I suspect that due to the changes in ownership over Java that they will now handle things like everyone else and get their java from Oracle. They aren't 'dropping' Java or anything of the sort. You'll simply go to Oracle to install it rather than getting it out of the box.
I would imagine Oracle asked for this, or Apple simply decided it wasn't worth the hassle of maintaining their own java machine.
I suspect a lot of the cutesy apps you see for a phone just don't translate to a desktop or laptop. The take it anywhere (show and tell) nature of a phone gives those apps appeal. Laptops and Desktop's typically aren't powered on and carried around to show the latest 'app'.
This is great news for Mac. There are a few good repositories for Mac software that haven't been sucked up by Downloads.com, but getting them on an official Apple site, with hopefully some hygenics behind them will make them generally more palatable and more accessible to a large population of Mac users.
Why would you think an open platform would suddenly force everyone to use the Mac app store, after the fact? That stretches credulity and would never pass muster from the customers, or the FCC.
Why is parent modded a troll? It happens to be the truth, regardless of whether or not someone likes Apple. Since when is stating a truth grounds for a Troll mod? It's not even snarky or inflammatory in tone. Apple does indeed allow you to create an account and not store card info. Mine is currently setup this way. I just enter the card number as needed when I decide to purchase something, use a gift card, or PayPal.
As to the topic at hand, I would trust Apple with my information more than I would Zuckerberg. Apple has a reputation to protect. Zuckerberg has outright called his users idiots for surrendering their personal info to him.
Stray from the party line? In what way? An OS does what it does. The fact that you can add 3rd party addons to expand or tweak it goes counter to your first statement. I equate the OS X GUI to Gnome. Minimal configuration for less hastle. Are you going to imply that you can't tweak Gnome because it's not very configurable out of the box?
MacOS is only easy to use if you don't stray from the party line. Otherwise it can quickly become more difficult to deal with than either Windows or Linux.
I support multiple households across 3 families with various flavors of Ubuntu, Windows, and OS X. OS X by far takes literally zero support hours. Linux takes second, and Windows is a weekly call from someone. For the average user, the GUI is perfect for 'the party line' because that's where the mainstream uses it.
Ah, my life for a Mod point. The point of security is to enforce the rules, not to ask for them to be enforced. I've been forced to turn off almost everything across the board on facebook. It's become a joke in it's 'safety' features and 'privacy' (or lack thereof).
Considering that the latest workstation distributions are still plagued by basic install issues (blank screens, etc), it's still not ready. I got a chuckle reading some of the support forums and the responses that were being given to 'newbies' as if they really expected these folks to understand what was being told to them. Although it has advanced by great strides in the last few years, it's still not ready. The basic install should work universally across a wide range of hardware. Seems they are still having problems with improper ATI/nVidia drivers being selected. This seems to be a common theme for the last 4 or 5 major releases.
If you install Windows, the chances are very rare that you won't get a desktop after the install. Even less so for OS X. End users don't want to deal with an OS that takes troubleshooting and 'technical' help to get it to even show something other than a command shell.
They newest offerings are impressive, but still need a LOT of work.
I think that an OS that spreads across both areas but reflects poorly in one (workstations), can effect it's perceived quality in the other arena (servers).
Not that I agree with 'never', given that the industry standard is to go with manufacturer deals, I would think that out of the millions of businesses out there, it's been tried and found not to be cost effective under normal use cases to 'build and support your own'. Given that current IT shops can either simply box up a problem machine and ship it off and swap it out with another, it removes any need for advanced troubleshooting skills, the need to stock replacement parts, and the associated storage costs for such replacement parts. It simply doesn't sound like it would be profitable, and it could easily cost more in all of those areas. Seems the cheaper cost of 'home built' could easily be outweighed by the supporting costs.
Sweeten the pot with the deals that vendors cut with larger companies, including discounts on the OS software and the OS itself, and it just doesn't seem cost effective to take on those additional costs to spare a few hundred bucks and do those things yourself.
For instance, in our company, up front cost is not always the deciding factor. If that were the case, we'd all be using FOSS. TCO should always be factored in, and not only in parts and supplies but support/infrastructure costs.
A black hole isn't pushing out so much energy and matter that matter can't get any closer than it's event horizon. If anything it welcomes new matter with open arms so to speak.
The manifestation of the experiment wasn't the most interesting part. It was the fact that the math behind it matched so closely to the existing models. It is all to common that small scale events mimc larger ones.
Use of the term CableCARD can be confusing, because some technologies refer not to the physical card, but to a device ("Host") that uses the card. Some CableCARD technologies can be used with devices that have no physical CableCARDs.
The parent is clearly not talking about a Host, but the actual implementation used in the US to replace a traditional Cable Box.
Slashdot Mirror
Where in the post does it state we are moving to an "IE8-only" solution? I said we are moving to IE8.
Of course they will be written to standard. They went through the pain once, they would be foolish to make the same mistake twice.
My company has shown no interest in Firefox, Chrome, or any other browser. They are satisfied with the boxed IE solution, and for day to day tasks, it gets the job done, which is, I suspect, enough. It also removes additional work on the legal side and reduces the support footprint. It doesn't require additional NDA's with various browser companies if support issues should arise and all security updates come from the same vendor. We've always been an MS shop, and I don't see that changing significantly any time soon. I was surprised that they are considering a few linux boxes for a few open source applications though. Historically they have avoided linux, so there is always hope.
Eventually support for IE6 will be gone, and that is a concern for corporations. We considered virtualization under Win7 and rejected it for that reason. The out of the box solution to run XP VM is meaningless if XP support dries up, and it doubles the desktop footprint for the support areas. A nightmare in the making.
We are going through the painful process of rewriting and certifying IE6 specific apps and migrating to IE8. Only after that is complete will we migrate to Win 7.
A 'business' does not meet the definition of such a group. A political action group is specifically created to champion the political agenda of it's members and it makes perfect sense that these should have the ability to do so as their members expressly joined such groups for that purpose, and donated money to such groups for that purpose.
A business on the other hand does not take it's employee's opinion into account when they spend corporate money on political action campaigns. I certainly can't tell my company where to spend it's money. I have no voice at all, other than taking a drastic step of leaving my job, and risking my own health and welfare to do so.
The ruling was bad, on all fronts. It is not free speech for a corporation to use it's coffers to 'speak' for employees who in turn have no control over where that money goes.
I don't think they care if you modify your XBox. They do care if you break DRM to pirate software. The specific question was why the XBox was not included in the 'jailbreak' exceptions stated by the Librarian of Congress, but smart phones were.
I suspect it's not as simple (or as underhanded) as people are implying. The phone is a utility device, with a long contract, which unlike common 'dumb' phones, cannot be moved from carrier to carrier as was originally intended. The X-Box was never intended to move from entertainment network to entertainment network, nor does it have a sim for just such a purpose.
On one hand we have a device that was design for portability to another carrier, and another device that was never designed for it.
I don't think there is any underhandedness at all. Although they are both a very specific class of computers, they are not the same type of device.
Actually they did see the 'joys of vm', and rejected them outright. I believe the response was that they make apps W7 compatible, rather than sticking a bandaid on it, which in the long run, makes sense. If MS support for XP is gone, and an XP machine in a VM still requires XP support...See the failing there? Some companies actually worry about supporting the OS after the vendor no longer does. Inconvenient I know.
Your '50,000 station deployment' is totally irrelevant to ours, but thanks for the info. I'm happy for you.
Do you seriously believe corporations don't know the capabilities of Windows 7?
That is the point I believe the parent is trying to make. There are too many legacy dependencies, as well as testing for existing apps that has to happen before they can even being to roll out Windows 7. Legal contracts, image standardization, etc. Throw 50,000 users into the mix and you have a very LONG product rollout. We are only now getting to a prod pilot for Windows 7 and they are already talking about Windows 8.
I'm guessing MS has realized that they can milk the OS cash cow every 2 years for a good turnaround for something that will probably resemble a 'service pack +'. What I think they fail to realize is that they are overvaluing the whole 'upgrade' experience in the eye's of IT and also in the eyes of a home user. When the cost of the OS begins to rival or exceed the cost of the hardware you run it on, it's probably a good time to evaluate your product cost.
If XP was a great OS (arguably a great Windows success anyway), to the point where it offers good value, performs well on current and future hardware, and has no major drawbacks, then I suspect MS will face the same problem that they faced with XP upgrades. People just don't want to deal with the mess and expense. Home users will upgrade when they buy a new PC and IT shops will delay as long as possible.
You would think MS would at least allow the existing OS to mature as well as the market to allow a NEED to migrate to develop.
Actually the are far more educated than Windows user, far more web savvy, more likely to build their own web sites, and have been online longer.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1040-943519.html
Just because someone prefers an OS with less hassle doesn't mean they are less capable. It just means they are smart for not wanting to fuck with their PC all day to keep it running.
You are also rating the ability to build a PC higher than is needed in the real world. Although it's a useful skill, it's hardly going to be profitable for the average user considering how cheap PC's are these days.
Although it may be popular to bash the 'elite' in political circles, I expect better from /. where elite (as in educated) is the last thing we should be bashing.
A general google search. Check the link I posted and look at the search result numbers, then look at the related searches at the bottom. This is not some obscure issue impacting a few folks. It affects a large number of distributions and is a common setup issue. Even a search within just Google Groups returns 92,000 hits for "Linux Blank Screen". No factor in that Windows has a 99% larger user base than Linux and those numbers look particularly bad.
You misunderstand consumer protection. It has nothing to do with 'market share'.
I don't recall anyone claiming malware could get through the App Store. Hearsay is great and all but if you're going to paint with such broad brush you should provide specifics.
The only example you cite is the CS5 issue, which was properly investigated by the FCC and in turn allowed again, most likely as a direct result of the FCC's 'interest' in the topic. Seems things are working as designed, just as they would if in some bizarro world, Apple were to attempt to lock down an open platform after the fact. It simply would not happen.
And therein lies the flaw in your idea of total lockdown. You find it abhorrent, as will others because as a PC owner (of any flavor), you can buy, install, or try any software you deem worthy. There will always be a need on a PC to be flexible. Although Apple can introduce new products like iOS devices that are locked out of the gate, you can't go into an open product and lock it down after the fact. That would be a huge no-no from a consumer protection standpoint. It just sounds like a baseless scare tactic. Since PC's are a major source of adult entertainment of many varieties (porn, games, social sites), there will always be a market outside of the Apple App Store.
Please provide some instance of some game changing event where everyone said 'that would never happen" and it did, in regards to freedom of the platform? The app store was released locked down to begin with. No change there. Macs were and still are open. No change there either.
No, their iOS devices were sold without any app store or means to get an app on the device. The app store was introduced as-is with the restrictions in place. With a Mac, they have millions of these on the market, and consumers are completely free to install whatever software they like. There is absolutely no way Apple could come in after the fact and force such a change to require everyone to use an app store only. Such suggestions that this would somehow happen are ridiculous on their face.
As has already been published, it will be an optional place to get software. This is NOT the same App Store Only model used on iOS devices.
I DO see this as a huge benefit to the Mac community, as I often look for software to do various things, and if it's not on the sites I frequent like Sourceforge.net, Version Tracker (before downloads.com ruined it), OpenSourceMac.Org, etc), then I'm leery of installing it. The official Apple App store looks to plan to use the same hygenics used in the App Store for iOS, for which I'm grateful.
They've already published the Guidelines for developers and it looks like the same setup (no porn, malware, unpublished API's, etc).
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/10/20/apple_issues_review_guidelines_for_mac_app_store.html
VERY good news for those who want a relatively trustworthy software source.
No, they simply depreciated the 'Apple' version of Java, meaning it will probably be discontinued in Lion. I suspect that due to the changes in ownership over Java that they will now handle things like everyone else and get their java from Oracle. They aren't 'dropping' Java or anything of the sort. You'll simply go to Oracle to install it rather than getting it out of the box.
I would imagine Oracle asked for this, or Apple simply decided it wasn't worth the hassle of maintaining their own java machine.
I suspect a lot of the cutesy apps you see for a phone just don't translate to a desktop or laptop. The take it anywhere (show and tell) nature of a phone gives those apps appeal. Laptops and Desktop's typically aren't powered on and carried around to show the latest 'app'.
This is great news for Mac. There are a few good repositories for Mac software that haven't been sucked up by Downloads.com, but getting them on an official Apple site, with hopefully some hygenics behind them will make them generally more palatable and more accessible to a large population of Mac users.
Why would you think an open platform would suddenly force everyone to use the Mac app store, after the fact? That stretches credulity and would never pass muster from the customers, or the FCC.
Why is parent modded a troll? It happens to be the truth, regardless of whether or not someone likes Apple. Since when is stating a truth grounds for a Troll mod? It's not even snarky or inflammatory in tone. Apple does indeed allow you to create an account and not store card info. Mine is currently setup this way. I just enter the card number as needed when I decide to purchase something, use a gift card, or PayPal.
As to the topic at hand, I would trust Apple with my information more than I would Zuckerberg. Apple has a reputation to protect. Zuckerberg has outright called his users idiots for surrendering their personal info to him.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/14/facebook_trust_dumb/
No one is saying it's not fast, or a great OS. I'm saying it needs polish.
A quarter of a million hits to Ubutntu blank screen and this has been a growing issue since around 8.0
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=ubuntu+blank+screen
It's not an uncommon problem.
Stray from the party line? In what way? An OS does what it does. The fact that you can add 3rd party addons to expand or tweak it goes counter to your first statement. I equate the OS X GUI to Gnome. Minimal configuration for less hastle. Are you going to imply that you can't tweak Gnome because it's not very configurable out of the box?
I support multiple households across 3 families with various flavors of Ubuntu, Windows, and OS X. OS X by far takes literally zero support hours. Linux takes second, and Windows is a weekly call from someone. For the average user, the GUI is perfect for 'the party line' because that's where the mainstream uses it.
Ah, my life for a Mod point. The point of security is to enforce the rules, not to ask for them to be enforced. I've been forced to turn off almost everything across the board on facebook. It's become a joke in it's 'safety' features and 'privacy' (or lack thereof).
How long before we see the release of Diaspora?
Considering that the latest workstation distributions are still plagued by basic install issues (blank screens, etc), it's still not ready. I got a chuckle reading some of the support forums and the responses that were being given to 'newbies' as if they really expected these folks to understand what was being told to them. Although it has advanced by great strides in the last few years, it's still not ready. The basic install should work universally across a wide range of hardware. Seems they are still having problems with improper ATI/nVidia drivers being selected. This seems to be a common theme for the last 4 or 5 major releases.
If you install Windows, the chances are very rare that you won't get a desktop after the install. Even less so for OS X. End users don't want to deal with an OS that takes troubleshooting and 'technical' help to get it to even show something other than a command shell.
They newest offerings are impressive, but still need a LOT of work.
I think that an OS that spreads across both areas but reflects poorly in one (workstations), can effect it's perceived quality in the other arena (servers).
Not that I agree with 'never', given that the industry standard is to go with manufacturer deals, I would think that out of the millions of businesses out there, it's been tried and found not to be cost effective under normal use cases to 'build and support your own'. Given that current IT shops can either simply box up a problem machine and ship it off and swap it out with another, it removes any need for advanced troubleshooting skills, the need to stock replacement parts, and the associated storage costs for such replacement parts. It simply doesn't sound like it would be profitable, and it could easily cost more in all of those areas. Seems the cheaper cost of 'home built' could easily be outweighed by the supporting costs.
Sweeten the pot with the deals that vendors cut with larger companies, including discounts on the OS software and the OS itself, and it just doesn't seem cost effective to take on those additional costs to spare a few hundred bucks and do those things yourself.
For instance, in our company, up front cost is not always the deciding factor. If that were the case, we'd all be using FOSS. TCO should always be factored in, and not only in parts and supplies but support/infrastructure costs.
A black hole isn't pushing out so much energy and matter that matter can't get any closer than it's event horizon. If anything it welcomes new matter with open arms so to speak.
This is about a white hole, not a black hole.
The manifestation of the experiment wasn't the most interesting part. It was the fact that the math behind it matched so closely to the existing models. It is all to common that small scale events mimc larger ones.
I find this comforting.
Your confusing the spec name with the implementation which is what the parent was referring to:
[Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CableCARD%5D
The parent is clearly not talking about a Host, but the actual implementation used in the US to replace a traditional Cable Box.