I see you're the forgiving sort. When someone makes a mistake, owns up to the mistake after the backlash hits, fixes it and apologizes, you do the honorable thing and condemn him as a fuckhead. Well done, do you feel better now? Out of curiosity, did you learn this forgiving compassionate approach from the Church?
I forgot to mention that the whole point of a "shortcut icon" is so you can quickly see the thing you want and double click on it. Having to find it by searching for it is just as long a route as scanning down column after column of options until you spot it. It's hardly what I'd call a shortcut.
Damn/. needs an "edit your posts" option for perhaps 5 minutes after you post so "quick further thoughts" don't need a separate post.
Interesting examples you choose to use, and how you're trying to portray them as the norm rather than the exception.
People who use VIM or Emacs are power users, chances are they're gonna run them from the terminal regardless of where they appear on the menu. The "Accessories" menu is for the oddball applications which don't fit into any other category, which is always gonna be a lot smaller on Linux because all the regular stuff that does fit into a category is in that category. You're right in the fact that it's no more arbitrary than the "all programs", other than it's been filtered and listed alphabetically.
I've not noticed any changes in category between releases but I don't doubt it happens from time to time. I have noticed different distros split things up differently. My user internet applications are under Network where I believe they should be under Internet, but these things are part of getting used to the distro you use, they are not likely to change much (if at all) between releases.
Where the Linux system (with Gnome at least) has issues is that sometimes applications are not listed by name, but rather by function. So GEdit is listed as "Text Editor". This can be annoying when looking for GEdit on the menu.
Open Office Draw is a strange example and one I agree with you on. The rest of the Open Office suite appears under the Office menu, it's odd that one part of it does not.
Most of the time Linux applications won't start at boot unless you tell them to, the exception being server daemons. Other applications do occasionally have stuff that do, like your Novell Evolution notifier.
Ubuntu does have a lot of things running to make it easier for the newbie. The more newbie friendly distros tend to try to cut out the steps a user needs to make to get something working. Of course there's a trade off again, that you can have it set to run at boot automatically or let the user do that step on the understanding that if they don't know about it, or know how that they will assume it's not working.
The "infinite number of places" a menu item can be in Linux fits neatly into a single/usr/share/applications/ which by my count is one place. You're right in the fact that it's a back end location, the user only sees the menu.
A decent cookie policy helps too. CSS Lite along with a "deny all cookies" default works wonders in that regard. Then just like NoScript you van allow them temporarily or permanently on an individual basis when a site you need demands them.
When a package is installed in Linux, the shortcut is put in it's category in the menu. If you install Firefox you know it will appear under something like "Internet / Browsers" or even just "Internet". In Windows it adds a Mozilla Firefox sub-menu with various Firefox, Firefox Safe Mode etc to the end of the list. If a user forgets it's a Mozilla application they're not looking for "Mozilla". If you have a lot of applications installed you're looking through a long unordered list to find the shortcut. Not to mention the fact that in Windows there are two places these shortcuts go, all users and current user, which is not very apparent on the front facing end, or programs which have no need to run at boot deciding to add themselves into the start folder.
"Why can't Microsoft make a good operating system? How is it that Vista cost six billion and failed? It's beyond my comprehension."
Microsoft (like all other corporate entities) exist for one purpose, and one purpose only; to make money. Everything they choose to do (or not do) feeds into that bottom line somewhere. The decision to put paid man-hours into adding something or fixing something is dependent on whether they can make money from the end results of that decision, or if not doing it will cost them more money than paying people to do it.
Windows is built by a corporation for other corporations, not end users. When you install Windows it's ready to have other stuff installed on it like an office suite, graphics software, firewall, anti-malware protection etc. The marketplace around Windows with partners etc is all about trial ware, software licenses. It's all "we'll sell you a solution to a problem you don't even know you have". The security settings allow developers free reign over what they install in their.exe files and whether they bother removing it when the program is removed.
It's not made for end users, only a sold to them in the form of a generated number and a license to use it under their terms and conditions. Microsoft's customers are other businesses, specially the large entertainment and gaming industries, where Windows is stuffed with DRM at almost every turn. From their perspective Windows is great, but then, from their perspective DRM is great too.
Linux is designed by users for users. Applications grow from users needing to scratch their own itches and finding that other people also have that same itch. Individual users don't have any corporate profit driven agenda to force into their applications. Corporations do contribute, some better than others, some with positive intentions for Linux, some negative. The development model of open source helps protect against corporations who seek to abuse Linux though. If Microsoft / Novell get their way and shove Mono into some distros by default, people can remove it or switch distros. If a project is taken over by a hostile entity like Microsoft it can be forked and continue with a new name and the same developers.
On Windows many application developers will hold back on features because it can be a selling point to the new version AKA a carrot. If people feel they need to keep buying the latest version of an application just to get a new feature it's more profitable for the vendors. When you hear responses to technical questions about "just upgrade to the new version", it almost always costs money to buy a new license for the new version.
This has it's limits and often turns into bloatware. Look at Nero the CD / DVD burner. Several years ago it was the best little burner on Windows, but what happens when it reaches it's peak and does everything people need it to do? How do Ahead convince people to buy the new version? They add new features of course, whether the new features really suit the software or add value isn't the issue, the issue is getting new stuff to add as bullet points in their advertising to get people to buy it. Now Nero is huge, and the reputation it once had has changed.
In the FOSS world most applications are free, so there's no reason not to upgrade to the new (stable) version, or hold back on features. Basically, innovation can be held back, denied to those who won't or can't pay, or it can be released for everyone to benefit and perhaps improve on.
It really depends on your perspective, Windows is great for vendors / repair people as most stuff comes as an optional chargeable extra, which means more profits. Even security is an extra, as well as fixing a broken Windows PC damaged by lack of security. If your business relies on Windows being bad, do you want them to produce a good OS? If you're also a Windows end user it would cut down on your headaches but it'd force you out of business too.
The proprietary model is to deny features unless the end user pays extra for them.
If your Windows installer does clears the mess after a program is uninstalled you must be using different programs than I did. I found that it does occasionally happen that a program removes stuff like it's own shortcuts but more often than not it just leaves them behind for you to manually remove the dead links; if you notice them and can be bothered doing something the developers should have had the courtesy to do.
Hell, Windows allows them to throw in links, shortcuts, toolbars anywhere they like at install time so that lack of interest in the customers choice surely only goes downhill when the customer turns their backs on a program and removes it. It's odd that the concept of a "shortcut" is supposed to save time, yet if every application throws 2 or 3 icons onto the desktop it takes you longer to hunt through them all to find the one you're looking for. The same applies to the "all programs" menu where stuff is added at the end of the list, often by the vendor, so you can easily have to look through 2 or 3 random ordered columns to find the link you're looking for.
Again, call me lazy if you want but when a browser installs clean and puts itself into "Internet" on the menu it is a genuine shortcut in time looking for the link to click on. The fact that I know the link is removed when I uninstall also helps keep the menu free of dead links. The only ones I need worry about are those I manually put there.
That could be from the arrogance of the developer in assuming that "hey it'll be re-installed" or "if we keep the little advertising spots on the users PC, they may be tempted to run the program, forget they removed it and install it again. If we remove the advertising it's out-of-sight, out-of-mind."
It's not just minor freeware etc programs which routinely do this it's major applications you'd expect to know better. Yes the Installer function allows that feature, but not many developers actually use it, so the end result is that it may as well not exist. In theory newly installed applications also list on the add / remove programs, which is sketchy and curiously has no way to "add" programs, only remove or reinstall what's already listed as installed.
"Opening an installation package will cause the installer to prompt the user."
I'd love to see a screen capture of a virus prompting the user for permission to install. Is this the default in Windows 7 now? If so Windows will actually be usable, and not a malware magnet it's always been up until now. Microsoft's partners won't be happy, many of their business models rely on Windows being shit and constantly needing protection and cleaning. Sarcasm aside, the lack of this is another reason why Windows is plagued with malware.
"Windows has permissions on both the file system and configuration data, and requires the appropriate permissions to install software."
All systems do, but running the default user as admin bypasses all of that. Anything the user does is done with admin rights, like scripts executing code from websites, the PC assumes the user initiated it. If you run any OS as an admin you're bypassing that security feature, that's why no other OS does it by default.
UAC is Microsoft's attempt at fixing that and giving (kinda) sudo-ish functionality to Windows. It was clunky in Vista, Windows users have long been conditioned into not being prompted for stuff because they've previously been running as admin often without knowing it. When it gets to the stage when your conditioning of your license holders has gotten so strong they rebel against their own interests you have a problem. You're back to the "we have to make decisions for them so they don't have to" which then puts you back into the realm of "enable stuff by default" mode because anything disabled can easily be seen wrongly as broken by the user.
A little education is the key here, but education will open Microsoft users to the fact that they have more knowledge about how a PC works, they can adapt easier to other OS's. The "Linux is
After understanding the Linux "run as normal user" principle and how important it is for security I did actually try to apply that Linux user / admin separation on an XP install. You're right, it's a nightmare, with far too many regular user programs needing admin rights to run.
In fairness I believe Microsoft have learned the error of that approach and have been trying to find a way round it. The problem they have is that they've conditioned users too well. They keep using "we know you don't want to learn anything new" as a reason to stay with Microsoft rather than look at something else.
They even tried to patent sudo, even though they never invented it and don't use it.....but then since when has that stopped them using legal bullshit to attack and extort money from a competitor?
Third party app developers don't help the cause either by not programming their user apps to need regular user rights. On the other hand OEM installed Windows which most Windows users have, tend to be installed as admin anyway to it's a fair bet that every user will be running as an admin.
I have serious issues when the average Joe Sixpack can go into the system folder, delete and change stuff at random with NO knowledge about what he;s doing. My mate's lil cousin has been known to do that, randomly delete files in the System32 folder that he don't like the name of because he's bored, then he complains when his PC don't boot up.
It's important that these functions should be doable. It's vital that the user / admin rights stop the average user from doing it. Of course, if people (or remote websites) were stopped from being able to hose their PCs, lots of PC repair stores would lose a LOT of customers and a lot of income. It does help their revenue stream when a clean PC can be hosed by the following day and needs a repeat appointment.
"EULAs generally have few, if any, illegal terms in them. Mostly because few EULAs were ever tested in courts. That doesn't automatically mean that they're legally binding. Mostly, again, because few have ever been tested in courts."
This is exactly my point.
The company who wrote the EULA for their product will treat it as legally binding until a court tells them it's not. They wrote it for exactly that purpose. They will use threats / bullying etc to try and get people to accept it rather than fight it, because they may just lose the fight, and therefor lose the right to continue using it to extort more money.
Linux has a single application which does all the installing / uninstalling a bit like a storeroom manager, everything goes in and out through that person. Windows has an open door policy where people can put what they want where they want, whether it's fully working or not, has an unistall option or not, has the users permission or not. Not only that, there's nothing checking that they clear out their mess after removal.
Call me lazy if you want, call me picky if you want but I like a simple, elegant, effortless, and secure solution that puts ME firmly in control of what happens on MY PC.
I don't doubt plenty of EULAs have illegal terms in them, Microsoft are not alone in this practice. Apple seem worse in this regard with "not allowed to install on non-Apple hardware" and "not allowed as a virtual PC" but like any other agreement, until someone has the money to risk fighting it in court it stands. Pystar tried with one of these clauses and was struck down in the US court. Yes there's a lot more going on there than just one clause but huge mega-rich corporations rely on bullying people into just accepting and paying, not fighting.
Still, if you feel as a loyal citizen to fight Microsoft on the terms of their EULA in the firm knowledge that "right" will win over a huge lobbying / lawyering budget then be my guest, be a good citizen on behalf of all Windows license holders. I wish you the best of luck, and remember to check down the back of the sofa for every last euro, you're gonna need them.
Windows is built to remove as many user decisions as possible on the idea that users shouldn't have to be techy to use a PC. This means stuff is enabled and allowed by default. Over the years Microsoft have been nailed for that practice, and have gradually put in fixes to many of them, often far too little and far too late. These features are essentially Microsoft making the decision for the user which on the face of it can be seen as training wheels to keep you safe, but in reality gives malware writers an open goal to aim at, and they have done BIG TIME. It's why Windows is a malware magnet and why NO other OS follows Microsoft's design lead.
Active X enabled on IE by default? Execute code from websites without asking by default? Run as Administrator by default? Install applications without even informing the user by default?
All of these and more suggest Microsoft want to be the ones making decisions on behalf of their license holders. From a loyal Microsoft point of view that could be that they want to look after you and have your interests at heart, to protect you from the bad people. Like any other corporation, Microsoft don't give a shit about it's license holders, their priorities lie firmly with THEIR interests, with THEM making as much money as possible. This is hampered when you allow others the control you once held, you then have to convince them to do something you could have done on their behalf with no discussion or notification.
Microsoft rely on the average user being kept dumb. The more the user knows about day to day computing, the more they can make the decisions Microsoft make on their behalf because they understand them, at least on a basic level. Other OS's find ways to get decent defaults but do ask the users for confirmation on stuff, with help options available; taking the approach of trying to educate the user to some degree and giving them control. We have a LONG way to go before this is working perfectly, but at least some are trying.
When Microsoft abuse the concept of "critical" in Windows updates to shove IE8 and WGA onto people's PC's knowing they most likely know nothing about it and have it set to automatically download and apply all critical updates it certainly does erode trust when they find out. On every Windows PC I have to deal with I NEVER allow automatic updates because I don't trust Microsoft to act in the users interests. I do updates manually, and always select "custom" to weed out the shit Microsoft are trying to push.
The concept of "download and install an uninstaller to uninstall a program you never asked for but Windows allowed to be installed" seems very common on Windows. Just goes to show Windows is built for developers to exploit, rather than users to use. And people still call it a "personal" computer. I guess one more oximoron can't hurt.
It's not YOUR PC though, the hardware is but Microsoft own the copy of Windows running on it, you only own a license to use Windows under their terms and conditions. Under those terms Microsoft can do whatever they want with the consent of the owners.....which is themselves.
Looks like I was under informed on the make up of the US court system. I stand corrected. The one part I did understand was the weight of the DOJ brief would be more than most others because of who it came from so it'd be harder to ignore.
In theory you're right, but remember this is only a brief sent to a judge, it's not a judge's final decision. The judge could read it and still rule the other way.
Given the entertainment industries strong connections with the Democrats in particular do you think they will just sit back with feet up and say "well played, you got us on that one."? Or do you think it's more likely that since they found out what the brief actually said that they went on the lobbying offensive to get those behind it punished / removed?
Not to mention appeal after appeal to move it to a court they know a more compliant judge will give them the decision they feel they deserve. Only when they've exhausted all of that, or gotten one of them to agree will they accept it's over.
Corporations don't take kindly to those who stand up to them, regardless of who they are. It's not about the law or fairness, it's about winning and making sure to keep your revenue stream unblocked.
Personal impressions of CEO's shouldn't dictate how they do their jobs (making loadsa cash to justify their self awarded bonuses) but does anyone else think that if you didn't know better and saw a video of him, that he's a used car salesman you'd expect to see on cable TV adverts on a car lot with some gimmicky props, a couple of girls in bikinis raving on about how he must be crazy to sell cars at those prices and how he's gonna put himself out of business if he continues it?
You can usually tell corporate board members / politicians but Steve Ballmer does not fit the dignified partially deaf and dumb scumbag mould. I'm guessing if he wasn't in it from the start with Bill he wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell of getting the job.
As much as I don't like Apple or Steve Jobs controlling way of doing things, at least he is a charismatic public speaker who enthuses and energizes people. He carries himself like a leader in public.
"Do you really think that Microsoft released a great version that everyone liked, just to trick people before giving them a shittier version??"
Not at all, I believe they put out a hollowed out RC version without all the bloatware to try and convince people that it was a different beast than Vista and they should hold out for it rather than acting on an impulse to switch away from Windows. I believe they knew it'd never be released as it was but wanted people to think it would be and not notice the added bloat.
Microsoft are no cartoon villan, they are incompetent in design but very professional in PR / lobbying / bullying. Cartoon villans always get stopped by the hero, there is no hero in this story and Microsoft seem to be getting away with most of their crimes, so no they are not a cartoon villan.
From everything I hear about it I hope Microsoft stay on track with Windows 7, dropping the 3 app limit on the Starter Edition shows that the occasional outbreak of common sense does happen at Redmond although not very often. I have my doubts on how much more common sense will bleed into the project before it's unleashed on the public. Vista's failure has made them nervous about ensuring Windows 7 isn't seen as DOA. If it really is Vista with a make over, how many former Windows customers will feel conned? If I was waiting loyally with XP for the new Windows because I didn't want Vista, only to shell out a lot of cash and find I'd bought Vista with a make over I would.
I do wonder just how many of their partners told them it was doomed before they relented. More to the point, I wonder how many didn't complain and were happy to go along with it.
From what I heard the early RC was light, stable etc but has recently taken on a rather hefty meal or ten making it as bloated as Vista was. It seems that the initial "light and snappy" version was only designed to get people to have a favorable impression, a bit like bribing the bloggers for favorable reviews. If this is true then Windows 7 is just Vista with a make over as many predicted all along.
From what I hear Windows 7 has as much chance of running on a netbook as Vista does, it'll be interesting how they take the knife to it to make it work as they are desperate to deny customers the choice of XP anywhere, while also denying Linux any of the market. All the while convince people to cough up a significant percentage of the netbook price for Windows. It's a fine balance and one that's gonna be hilarious to watch.
It's getting rather predictable where the Windows proxies / astro turfers will use their mod points. To be fair to them though, Microsoft are cutting back on astro turfing budgets so those doing it have to be ruthless to ensure they are not the ones facing the unemployment lines. They are only doing their jobs, we don't take it personally when we laugh at their lack of integrity.
Just when you thought Mr C Sense had been a casualty of the Redmond lay-off spree it turns out he was just hiding under a desk all along, not wanting to draw too much attention to himself.
While corporate lobbyists dictate the infrastructure, it's gonna be a Windows backbone. Nobody can make that secure. While this situation remains, the position is a no win one.
My use of the term "PC" is "personal computer", a computer which can be personalized to the users needs in terms of added software / hardware / layout / workflow etc, rather than a generic all-singing-all-dancing computer with every application known to man and beast pre-installed requiring a mortgage to pay for all the licenses, even if you only need it for a couple of functions or a specialized computer built with one function in mind like a word processor which does nothing else.
It's arguable how close either Windows or OSX meets that definition as they don't allow you to modify the default look and feel all that much as they have corporate branding to protect. They want their product to be recognizable at a glance. Both Apple and Microsoft believe in licensing software rather than selling it to the customer, where they retain rights or restrictions on it's use. If you don't own it, can it really be your personal computer? If there are corporate restrictions placed on it's use can it really be your personal computer? If there's a kill switch inside it that you can't remove, remotely controlled by the vendor can it really be your personal computer?
I'm guessing the term COC (Corporation Owned Computer) wouldn't be so easy or positive to market, aside from drawing the ire of the Ubuntu community for taking the CoC (Code Of Conduct) abbreviation.
All of that aside, Apple have gone to great lengths to be seen as a separate thing from a PC and it's worked. The mass mindset believes them to be two different things. They also won the iPod war too by getting in early with a slick device to the point that people talk about their mp3/4 players and call them iPods when they are not.
Slashdot Mirror
"the guy's a total fuck head (see adblock)."
I see you're the forgiving sort. When someone makes a mistake, owns up to the mistake after the backlash hits, fixes it and apologizes, you do the honorable thing and condemn him as a fuckhead. Well done, do you feel better now? Out of curiosity, did you learn this forgiving compassionate approach from the Church?
I forgot to mention that the whole point of a "shortcut icon" is so you can quickly see the thing you want and double click on it. Having to find it by searching for it is just as long a route as scanning down column after column of options until you spot it. It's hardly what I'd call a shortcut.
/. needs an "edit your posts" option for perhaps 5 minutes after you post so "quick further thoughts" don't need a separate post.
Damn
Interesting examples you choose to use, and how you're trying to portray them as the norm rather than the exception.
/usr/share/applications/ which by my count is one place. You're right in the fact that it's a back end location, the user only sees the menu.
People who use VIM or Emacs are power users, chances are they're gonna run them from the terminal regardless of where they appear on the menu. The "Accessories" menu is for the oddball applications which don't fit into any other category, which is always gonna be a lot smaller on Linux because all the regular stuff that does fit into a category is in that category. You're right in the fact that it's no more arbitrary than the "all programs", other than it's been filtered and listed alphabetically.
I've not noticed any changes in category between releases but I don't doubt it happens from time to time. I have noticed different distros split things up differently. My user internet applications are under Network where I believe they should be under Internet, but these things are part of getting used to the distro you use, they are not likely to change much (if at all) between releases.
Where the Linux system (with Gnome at least) has issues is that sometimes applications are not listed by name, but rather by function. So GEdit is listed as "Text Editor". This can be annoying when looking for GEdit on the menu.
Open Office Draw is a strange example and one I agree with you on. The rest of the Open Office suite appears under the Office menu, it's odd that one part of it does not.
Most of the time Linux applications won't start at boot unless you tell them to, the exception being server daemons. Other applications do occasionally have stuff that do, like your Novell Evolution notifier.
Ubuntu does have a lot of things running to make it easier for the newbie. The more newbie friendly distros tend to try to cut out the steps a user needs to make to get something working. Of course there's a trade off again, that you can have it set to run at boot automatically or let the user do that step on the understanding that if they don't know about it, or know how that they will assume it's not working.
The "infinite number of places" a menu item can be in Linux fits neatly into a single
A decent cookie policy helps too. CSS Lite along with a "deny all cookies" default works wonders in that regard. Then just like NoScript you van allow them temporarily or permanently on an individual basis when a site you need demands them.
When a package is installed in Linux, the shortcut is put in it's category in the menu. If you install Firefox you know it will appear under something like "Internet / Browsers" or even just "Internet". In Windows it adds a Mozilla Firefox sub-menu with various Firefox, Firefox Safe Mode etc to the end of the list. If a user forgets it's a Mozilla application they're not looking for "Mozilla". If you have a lot of applications installed you're looking through a long unordered list to find the shortcut. Not to mention the fact that in Windows there are two places these shortcuts go, all users and current user, which is not very apparent on the front facing end, or programs which have no need to run at boot deciding to add themselves into the start folder.
"Why can't Microsoft make a good operating system? How is it that Vista cost six billion and failed? It's beyond my comprehension."
.exe files and whether they bother removing it when the program is removed.
Microsoft (like all other corporate entities) exist for one purpose, and one purpose only; to make money. Everything they choose to do (or not do) feeds into that bottom line somewhere. The decision to put paid man-hours into adding something or fixing something is dependent on whether they can make money from the end results of that decision, or if not doing it will cost them more money than paying people to do it.
Windows is built by a corporation for other corporations, not end users. When you install Windows it's ready to have other stuff installed on it like an office suite, graphics software, firewall, anti-malware protection etc. The marketplace around Windows with partners etc is all about trial ware, software licenses. It's all "we'll sell you a solution to a problem you don't even know you have". The security settings allow developers free reign over what they install in their
It's not made for end users, only a sold to them in the form of a generated number and a license to use it under their terms and conditions. Microsoft's customers are other businesses, specially the large entertainment and gaming industries, where Windows is stuffed with DRM at almost every turn. From their perspective Windows is great, but then, from their perspective DRM is great too.
Linux is designed by users for users. Applications grow from users needing to scratch their own itches and finding that other people also have that same itch. Individual users don't have any corporate profit driven agenda to force into their applications. Corporations do contribute, some better than others, some with positive intentions for Linux, some negative. The development model of open source helps protect against corporations who seek to abuse Linux though. If Microsoft / Novell get their way and shove Mono into some distros by default, people can remove it or switch distros. If a project is taken over by a hostile entity like Microsoft it can be forked and continue with a new name and the same developers.
On Windows many application developers will hold back on features because it can be a selling point to the new version AKA a carrot. If people feel they need to keep buying the latest version of an application just to get a new feature it's more profitable for the vendors. When you hear responses to technical questions about "just upgrade to the new version", it almost always costs money to buy a new license for the new version.
This has it's limits and often turns into bloatware. Look at Nero the CD / DVD burner. Several years ago it was the best little burner on Windows, but what happens when it reaches it's peak and does everything people need it to do? How do Ahead convince people to buy the new version? They add new features of course, whether the new features really suit the software or add value isn't the issue, the issue is getting new stuff to add as bullet points in their advertising to get people to buy it. Now Nero is huge, and the reputation it once had has changed.
In the FOSS world most applications are free, so there's no reason not to upgrade to the new (stable) version, or hold back on features. Basically, innovation can be held back, denied to those who won't or can't pay, or it can be released for everyone to benefit and perhaps improve on.
It really depends on your perspective, Windows is great for vendors / repair people as most stuff comes as an optional chargeable extra, which means more profits. Even security is an extra, as well as fixing a broken Windows PC damaged by lack of security. If your business relies on Windows being bad, do you want them to produce a good OS? If you're also a Windows end user it would cut down on your headaches but it'd force you out of business too.
The proprietary model is to deny features unless the end user pays extra for them.
If your Windows installer does clears the mess after a program is uninstalled you must be using different programs than I did. I found that it does occasionally happen that a program removes stuff like it's own shortcuts but more often than not it just leaves them behind for you to manually remove the dead links; if you notice them and can be bothered doing something the developers should have had the courtesy to do.
Hell, Windows allows them to throw in links, shortcuts, toolbars anywhere they like at install time so that lack of interest in the customers choice surely only goes downhill when the customer turns their backs on a program and removes it. It's odd that the concept of a "shortcut" is supposed to save time, yet if every application throws 2 or 3 icons onto the desktop it takes you longer to hunt through them all to find the one you're looking for. The same applies to the "all programs" menu where stuff is added at the end of the list, often by the vendor, so you can easily have to look through 2 or 3 random ordered columns to find the link you're looking for.
Again, call me lazy if you want but when a browser installs clean and puts itself into "Internet" on the menu it is a genuine shortcut in time looking for the link to click on. The fact that I know the link is removed when I uninstall also helps keep the menu free of dead links. The only ones I need worry about are those I manually put there.
That could be from the arrogance of the developer in assuming that "hey it'll be re-installed" or "if we keep the little advertising spots on the users PC, they may be tempted to run the program, forget they removed it and install it again. If we remove the advertising it's out-of-sight, out-of-mind."
It's not just minor freeware etc programs which routinely do this it's major applications you'd expect to know better. Yes the Installer function allows that feature, but not many developers actually use it, so the end result is that it may as well not exist. In theory newly installed applications also list on the add / remove programs, which is sketchy and curiously has no way to "add" programs, only remove or reinstall what's already listed as installed.
"Opening an installation package will cause the installer to prompt the user."
I'd love to see a screen capture of a virus prompting the user for permission to install. Is this the default in Windows 7 now? If so Windows will actually be usable, and not a malware magnet it's always been up until now. Microsoft's partners won't be happy, many of their business models rely on Windows being shit and constantly needing protection and cleaning. Sarcasm aside, the lack of this is another reason why Windows is plagued with malware.
"Windows has permissions on both the file system and configuration data, and requires the appropriate permissions to install software."
All systems do, but running the default user as admin bypasses all of that. Anything the user does is done with admin rights, like scripts executing code from websites, the PC assumes the user initiated it. If you run any OS as an admin you're bypassing that security feature, that's why no other OS does it by default.
UAC is Microsoft's attempt at fixing that and giving (kinda) sudo-ish functionality to Windows. It was clunky in Vista, Windows users have long been conditioned into not being prompted for stuff because they've previously been running as admin often without knowing it. When it gets to the stage when your conditioning of your license holders has gotten so strong they rebel against their own interests you have a problem. You're back to the "we have to make decisions for them so they don't have to" which then puts you back into the realm of "enable stuff by default" mode because anything disabled can easily be seen wrongly as broken by the user.
A little education is the key here, but education will open Microsoft users to the fact that they have more knowledge about how a PC works, they can adapt easier to other OS's. The "Linux is
After understanding the Linux "run as normal user" principle and how important it is for security I did actually try to apply that Linux user / admin separation on an XP install. You're right, it's a nightmare, with far too many regular user programs needing admin rights to run.
In fairness I believe Microsoft have learned the error of that approach and have been trying to find a way round it. The problem they have is that they've conditioned users too well. They keep using "we know you don't want to learn anything new" as a reason to stay with Microsoft rather than look at something else.
They even tried to patent sudo, even though they never invented it and don't use it.....but then since when has that stopped them using legal bullshit to attack and extort money from a competitor?
Third party app developers don't help the cause either by not programming their user apps to need regular user rights. On the other hand OEM installed Windows which most Windows users have, tend to be installed as admin anyway to it's a fair bet that every user will be running as an admin.
I have serious issues when the average Joe Sixpack can go into the system folder, delete and change stuff at random with NO knowledge about what he;s doing. My mate's lil cousin has been known to do that, randomly delete files in the System32 folder that he don't like the name of because he's bored, then he complains when his PC don't boot up.
It's important that these functions should be doable. It's vital that the user / admin rights stop the average user from doing it. Of course, if people (or remote websites) were stopped from being able to hose their PCs, lots of PC repair stores would lose a LOT of customers and a lot of income. It does help their revenue stream when a clean PC can be hosed by the following day and needs a repeat appointment.
"EULAs generally have few, if any, illegal terms in them. Mostly because few EULAs were ever tested in courts. That doesn't automatically mean that they're legally binding. Mostly, again, because few have ever been tested in courts."
This is exactly my point.
The company who wrote the EULA for their product will treat it as legally binding until a court tells them it's not. They wrote it for exactly that purpose. They will use threats / bullying etc to try and get people to accept it rather than fight it, because they may just lose the fight, and therefor lose the right to continue using it to extort more money.
Linux has a single application which does all the installing / uninstalling a bit like a storeroom manager, everything goes in and out through that person. Windows has an open door policy where people can put what they want where they want, whether it's fully working or not, has an unistall option or not, has the users permission or not. Not only that, there's nothing checking that they clear out their mess after removal.
Call me lazy if you want, call me picky if you want but I like a simple, elegant, effortless, and secure solution that puts ME firmly in control of what happens on MY PC.
I don't doubt plenty of EULAs have illegal terms in them, Microsoft are not alone in this practice. Apple seem worse in this regard with "not allowed to install on non-Apple hardware" and "not allowed as a virtual PC" but like any other agreement, until someone has the money to risk fighting it in court it stands. Pystar tried with one of these clauses and was struck down in the US court. Yes there's a lot more going on there than just one clause but huge mega-rich corporations rely on bullying people into just accepting and paying, not fighting.
Still, if you feel as a loyal citizen to fight Microsoft on the terms of their EULA in the firm knowledge that "right" will win over a huge lobbying / lawyering budget then be my guest, be a good citizen on behalf of all Windows license holders. I wish you the best of luck, and remember to check down the back of the sofa for every last euro, you're gonna need them.
Windows is built to remove as many user decisions as possible on the idea that users shouldn't have to be techy to use a PC. This means stuff is enabled and allowed by default. Over the years Microsoft have been nailed for that practice, and have gradually put in fixes to many of them, often far too little and far too late. These features are essentially Microsoft making the decision for the user which on the face of it can be seen as training wheels to keep you safe, but in reality gives malware writers an open goal to aim at, and they have done BIG TIME. It's why Windows is a malware magnet and why NO other OS follows Microsoft's design lead.
Active X enabled on IE by default? Execute code from websites without asking by default? Run as Administrator by default? Install applications without even informing the user by default?
All of these and more suggest Microsoft want to be the ones making decisions on behalf of their license holders. From a loyal Microsoft point of view that could be that they want to look after you and have your interests at heart, to protect you from the bad people. Like any other corporation, Microsoft don't give a shit about it's license holders, their priorities lie firmly with THEIR interests, with THEM making as much money as possible. This is hampered when you allow others the control you once held, you then have to convince them to do something you could have done on their behalf with no discussion or notification.
Microsoft rely on the average user being kept dumb. The more the user knows about day to day computing, the more they can make the decisions Microsoft make on their behalf because they understand them, at least on a basic level. Other OS's find ways to get decent defaults but do ask the users for confirmation on stuff, with help options available; taking the approach of trying to educate the user to some degree and giving them control. We have a LONG way to go before this is working perfectly, but at least some are trying.
When Microsoft abuse the concept of "critical" in Windows updates to shove IE8 and WGA onto people's PC's knowing they most likely know nothing about it and have it set to automatically download and apply all critical updates it certainly does erode trust when they find out. On every Windows PC I have to deal with I NEVER allow automatic updates because I don't trust Microsoft to act in the users interests. I do updates manually, and always select "custom" to weed out the shit Microsoft are trying to push.
The concept of "download and install an uninstaller to uninstall a program you never asked for but Windows allowed to be installed" seems very common on Windows. Just goes to show Windows is built for developers to exploit, rather than users to use. And people still call it a "personal" computer. I guess one more oximoron can't hurt.
It's not YOUR PC though, the hardware is but Microsoft own the copy of Windows running on it, you only own a license to use Windows under their terms and conditions. Under those terms Microsoft can do whatever they want with the consent of the owners.....which is themselves.
Looks like I was under informed on the make up of the US court system. I stand corrected. The one part I did understand was the weight of the DOJ brief would be more than most others because of who it came from so it'd be harder to ignore.
In theory you're right, but remember this is only a brief sent to a judge, it's not a judge's final decision. The judge could read it and still rule the other way.
Given the entertainment industries strong connections with the Democrats in particular do you think they will just sit back with feet up and say "well played, you got us on that one."? Or do you think it's more likely that since they found out what the brief actually said that they went on the lobbying offensive to get those behind it punished / removed?
Not to mention appeal after appeal to move it to a court they know a more compliant judge will give them the decision they feel they deserve. Only when they've exhausted all of that, or gotten one of them to agree will they accept it's over.
Corporations don't take kindly to those who stand up to them, regardless of who they are. It's not about the law or fairness, it's about winning and making sure to keep your revenue stream unblocked.
Personal impressions of CEO's shouldn't dictate how they do their jobs (making loadsa cash to justify their self awarded bonuses) but does anyone else think that if you didn't know better and saw a video of him, that he's a used car salesman you'd expect to see on cable TV adverts on a car lot with some gimmicky props, a couple of girls in bikinis raving on about how he must be crazy to sell cars at those prices and how he's gonna put himself out of business if he continues it?
You can usually tell corporate board members / politicians but Steve Ballmer does not fit the dignified partially deaf and dumb scumbag mould. I'm guessing if he wasn't in it from the start with Bill he wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell of getting the job.
As much as I don't like Apple or Steve Jobs controlling way of doing things, at least he is a charismatic public speaker who enthuses and energizes people. He carries himself like a leader in public.
C in this context is short for Common, he's rarely seen at Redmond.
"Do you really think that Microsoft released a great version that everyone liked, just to trick people before giving them a shittier version??"
Not at all, I believe they put out a hollowed out RC version without all the bloatware to try and convince people that it was a different beast than Vista and they should hold out for it rather than acting on an impulse to switch away from Windows. I believe they knew it'd never be released as it was but wanted people to think it would be and not notice the added bloat.
Microsoft are no cartoon villan, they are incompetent in design but very professional in PR / lobbying / bullying. Cartoon villans always get stopped by the hero, there is no hero in this story and Microsoft seem to be getting away with most of their crimes, so no they are not a cartoon villan.
From everything I hear about it I hope Microsoft stay on track with Windows 7, dropping the 3 app limit on the Starter Edition shows that the occasional outbreak of common sense does happen at Redmond although not very often. I have my doubts on how much more common sense will bleed into the project before it's unleashed on the public. Vista's failure has made them nervous about ensuring Windows 7 isn't seen as DOA. If it really is Vista with a make over, how many former Windows customers will feel conned? If I was waiting loyally with XP for the new Windows because I didn't want Vista, only to shell out a lot of cash and find I'd bought Vista with a make over I would.
I do wonder just how many of their partners told them it was doomed before they relented. More to the point, I wonder how many didn't complain and were happy to go along with it.
From what I heard the early RC was light, stable etc but has recently taken on a rather hefty meal or ten making it as bloated as Vista was. It seems that the initial "light and snappy" version was only designed to get people to have a favorable impression, a bit like bribing the bloggers for favorable reviews. If this is true then Windows 7 is just Vista with a make over as many predicted all along.
From what I hear Windows 7 has as much chance of running on a netbook as Vista does, it'll be interesting how they take the knife to it to make it work as they are desperate to deny customers the choice of XP anywhere, while also denying Linux any of the market. All the while convince people to cough up a significant percentage of the netbook price for Windows. It's a fine balance and one that's gonna be hilarious to watch.
Damn that was funny, if I had mod points or hadn't already commented on this article.
It's getting rather predictable where the Windows proxies / astro turfers will use their mod points. To be fair to them though, Microsoft are cutting back on astro turfing budgets so those doing it have to be ruthless to ensure they are not the ones facing the unemployment lines. They are only doing their jobs, we don't take it personally when we laugh at their lack of integrity.
Just when you thought Mr C Sense had been a casualty of the Redmond lay-off spree it turns out he was just hiding under a desk all along, not wanting to draw too much attention to himself.
While corporate lobbyists dictate the infrastructure, it's gonna be a Windows backbone. Nobody can make that secure. While this situation remains, the position is a no win one.
I had no idea PC was trademarked by anyone, wow.
My use of the term "PC" is "personal computer", a computer which can be personalized to the users needs in terms of added software / hardware / layout / workflow etc, rather than a generic all-singing-all-dancing computer with every application known to man and beast pre-installed requiring a mortgage to pay for all the licenses, even if you only need it for a couple of functions or a specialized computer built with one function in mind like a word processor which does nothing else.
It's arguable how close either Windows or OSX meets that definition as they don't allow you to modify the default look and feel all that much as they have corporate branding to protect. They want their product to be recognizable at a glance. Both Apple and Microsoft believe in licensing software rather than selling it to the customer, where they retain rights or restrictions on it's use. If you don't own it, can it really be your personal computer? If there are corporate restrictions placed on it's use can it really be your personal computer? If there's a kill switch inside it that you can't remove, remotely controlled by the vendor can it really be your personal computer?
I'm guessing the term COC (Corporation Owned Computer) wouldn't be so easy or positive to market, aside from drawing the ire of the Ubuntu community for taking the CoC (Code Of Conduct) abbreviation.
All of that aside, Apple have gone to great lengths to be seen as a separate thing from a PC and it's worked. The mass mindset believes them to be two different things. They also won the iPod war too by getting in early with a slick device to the point that people talk about their mp3/4 players and call them iPods when they are not.