I believe that is what they're going for - at least, that's what I'm getting out of it. I think the better solution is to force Microsoft to include Firefox, Opera, Safari (at the least) and perhaps one or two more. I would think it more important to forcibly inform the user that they have choices by confronting them with choices on first boot than to forcibly inform them by removing their only obvious choice. Personally, I think that would make most users angry and cause them to stick even more doggedly with IE and refuse to try other options.
They did. I was just puzzling over how competition is being harmed (per this article) if bundling doesn't lead to market share and, therefore, causes no harm to competition (per the previous article). Their PR and Legal departments need to get their execs on the same page.
I understand what you're trying to tell me now and you make good points. I only upgrade to Fedora(version x-1) to avoid problems with Fedora(version x) and give time for bugs in Fedora(version x) to be worked out. I don't use KDE because I like the look of Gnome better and like the way my workspace is laid out in Gnome better than in KDE. For the average user, staying one version behind will tend to keep them in the clear when it comes to fatal problems. I had to learn most of what I've learned just so that I could use Xandros (where I started) and I found that once I knew enough to administer Xandros, then learning how to accomplish the same things in Fedora was trivial. The problem for the average user is that they don't want to learn these kinds of things. They want to use the computer and then walk away from it because doing anything with a computer is not their idea of a good time.
I only know what iptables are because I've done a lot of reading in the two years since I started using Linux (of any variety). I know what iptables is, but can't do anything with that because it hasn't been a high enough priority to actually learn about. Same with SELinux, except that kept annoying me with messages so I just turned off the messages since the system was still functioning normally and because I have more pressing things to deal with when not working. I was not clear enough in my last post when I mentioned iptables and that is my fault. So, I apologize for giving you the impression that I could actually edit iptables. I'm "security-minded", but currently my security on my home box is "good enough" and, as stated, I haven't bothered to invest more time in improving it from "good enough" to "actually good".
As for Fedora not being good for the "average" user, the "average" user can't set it up. At the same time, once it is set up, it's virtually maintenance free. However, both of those points are equally true about most of the more popular distributions, as well (including Ubuntu). I know several people who tried Ubuntu on my suggestion because it is easier to set up than Fedora. They still couldn't figure it out. So, I have given up recommending Ubuntu to anyone and have instead gone back to recommending having me set up Fedora for them and trying it out. After all, it's fairly easy to make their computer like Linux was never there. I'd rather set up Linux correctly for them, help them learn a new way of doing things, and get them to like Linux (and F/OSS, in general) rather than have them get pissed off at Linux and at me, associate all F/OSS with their poor Linux experience, and declare Microsoft "The One True Software Company".
Personally, I stay one version of Fedora behind all the time to ensure things continue to go smoothly for me. If I had a second PC on which to run Fedora, I would put the latest version on that and play around with that while teaching myself new and interesting things. As it is, I don't have that luxury right now and choose to let issues get sussed out before I upgrade. This policy kind of frustrates me sometimes, especailly when Fedora 11 comes out because I'd like to use that right away, but it keeps things working smoothly, keeps my wife from complaining about problems with the computer, and minimizes the amount of time required from me to make sure things work as they should.
I see. So, three people is a consensus. I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for reminding me why I usually lurk instead of posting. I'll go back to lurking now.
You didn't say "unstable" using exactly that word, but...
Fedora is created for testing, not for everyday usage for normal people
and
Using Fedora will cripple their productivity
"Testing" == "Unstable" for most people here. Personally, I feel I'm closer to "normal people" than "nerd". I know more about computers than most people I know, but I am absolutely dwarfed by many slashdotters. I have not had to tweak Fedora to get it working at all. I turned off a few services, like bluetooth, but that doesn't require any skill. I couldn't customize iptables without quite a bit of reading. Granted, I couldn't get Fedora working on my Toshiba laptop, but this was not a short-coming limited solely to Fedora, either. I tried Ubuntu, Debian, SimplyMepis, Mandriva, OpenSUSE, Sabayon, PCLinuxOS and one or two more and they all had the same problem - unable to recognize the battery and shutdown 30 seconds after reaching the logon screen. Only Xandros would work on my laptop, but I don't like it enough to opt for that over Windows XP on my laptop. I very much doubt their productivity will be crippled since there are many people using Fedora whose productivity has not been crippled, myself included.
The point being that Fedora is geared toward home and small-business desktop machines. Redhat/CentOS is geared toward Enterprise customers. What would be the point of Redhat testing Enterprise-targeted features in a SOHO-targeted operating sysytem? They aren't going to get any useful feedback on most of those features because SOHO users won't need those features. If they do (perhaps for telecommuting or some such), they'll just use the same version of Redhat their employer has deployed in the production environment. So, please, stop spreading the myth that Fedora is Redhat's testbed because even Redhat has said that Fedora is not their testbed!
Fedora is not created for testing. My mother-in-law (who has brain damage from brain surgeries) uses it without any trouble (Yes, I set it up but I have not had any maintenance to do since I set it up almost 2 years ago).
I know, I know - "Don't feed the trolls". I couldn't help myself this time.
Exactly. Just two weeks ago, I had to re-install Windows on my wife's aunt's machine. It took me almost an hour to explain that the blue E is not Windows and another hour to explain that she does NOT need the blue E. I installed both Firefox (w/Adblock, Flashblock, etc) and Opera for her and showed her she doesn't need the blue E. Then, I told her not to use Internet Explorer again.
Actually, this sounds interesting to play around with, even though it wouldn't be remotely useful to me. I'll hop on over to my local Radio Shack this afternoon and see if they have any they'll give me.
Actually, New Hampshire is the one with the little corner that is outside of the "Constitution Free Zone". Vermont lies wholly within it. As does Massachusetts, to wit:
Some states are considered to lie completely within the zone: Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.
Actually, there is a significant difference between the two questions as worded. The original question "Does that include the basement as well or just the main floors?" indicates the main floors are used in the calculation by default AND the basement may be excluded from the calculation by default. The second question "Does that include floors other than the basement?" indicates the basement is used in the calculation by default AND that other floors may be exluded from the calculation by default. So, clearly corsec67 has a much better grasp of the English language than you do.
Not sure which distro you're using, but I don't have daily kernel updates to do. In fact, I've got 14 updates waiting for me to apply them right now and not ONE of them will require a reboot. Contrast that with having to reboot nearly every time there is an update for Windows or a program that runs in Windows. In fact, the last time I had to install Windows XP for someone (pre-SP3), I had to reboot the dmn machine 14 times before all was said and done (and that was just for WINDOWS updates and not for any programs other than WMP - Office was never installed).
Sure you can. Just like a wife would recommend against trusting her husband just because he stopped cheating on her THIS YEAR, but had cheated on her in each of the last 6 years. Just because a change has been implemented does not mean that the change is permanent. Likely, this edition of Symantec is just a temporary reprieve from the all-consuming nature of Symantec products.
The last anti-virus program I had on my Windows install was BitDefender. I felt the program protected me well and also didn't use anywhere near the same amount of resources as Norton or McAfee do. At this point, I don't even bother paying for anti-virus programs for my Windows install anymore. I'm just not logged into Windows enough for it to be worthwhile and, even when I am logged into Windows, I have its network access blocked unless I specifically need something from the Internet (Windows updates, primarily). After that, I re-block its network access. All my web surfing, updates to my wife's website, and stuff like that is all done from within Linux. Windows is probably only booted for about 2 hours a month.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that is what they're going for - at least, that's what I'm getting out of it. I think the better solution is to force Microsoft to include Firefox, Opera, Safari (at the least) and perhaps one or two more. I would think it more important to forcibly inform the user that they have choices by confronting them with choices on first boot than to forcibly inform them by removing their only obvious choice. Personally, I think that would make most users angry and cause them to stick even more doggedly with IE and refuse to try other options.
They did. I was just puzzling over how competition is being harmed (per this article) if bundling doesn't lead to market share and, therefore, causes no harm to competition (per the previous article). Their PR and Legal departments need to get their execs on the same page.
I understand what you're trying to tell me now and you make good points. I only upgrade to Fedora(version x-1) to avoid problems with Fedora(version x) and give time for bugs in Fedora(version x) to be worked out. I don't use KDE because I like the look of Gnome better and like the way my workspace is laid out in Gnome better than in KDE. For the average user, staying one version behind will tend to keep them in the clear when it comes to fatal problems. I had to learn most of what I've learned just so that I could use Xandros (where I started) and I found that once I knew enough to administer Xandros, then learning how to accomplish the same things in Fedora was trivial. The problem for the average user is that they don't want to learn these kinds of things. They want to use the computer and then walk away from it because doing anything with a computer is not their idea of a good time.
I only know what iptables are because I've done a lot of reading in the two years since I started using Linux (of any variety). I know what iptables is, but can't do anything with that because it hasn't been a high enough priority to actually learn about. Same with SELinux, except that kept annoying me with messages so I just turned off the messages since the system was still functioning normally and because I have more pressing things to deal with when not working. I was not clear enough in my last post when I mentioned iptables and that is my fault. So, I apologize for giving you the impression that I could actually edit iptables. I'm "security-minded", but currently my security on my home box is "good enough" and, as stated, I haven't bothered to invest more time in improving it from "good enough" to "actually good".
As for Fedora not being good for the "average" user, the "average" user can't set it up. At the same time, once it is set up, it's virtually maintenance free. However, both of those points are equally true about most of the more popular distributions, as well (including Ubuntu). I know several people who tried Ubuntu on my suggestion because it is easier to set up than Fedora. They still couldn't figure it out. So, I have given up recommending Ubuntu to anyone and have instead gone back to recommending having me set up Fedora for them and trying it out. After all, it's fairly easy to make their computer like Linux was never there. I'd rather set up Linux correctly for them, help them learn a new way of doing things, and get them to like Linux (and F/OSS, in general) rather than have them get pissed off at Linux and at me, associate all F/OSS with their poor Linux experience, and declare Microsoft "The One True Software Company".
Personally, I stay one version of Fedora behind all the time to ensure things continue to go smoothly for me. If I had a second PC on which to run Fedora, I would put the latest version on that and play around with that while teaching myself new and interesting things. As it is, I don't have that luxury right now and choose to let issues get sussed out before I upgrade. This policy kind of frustrates me sometimes, especailly when Fedora 11 comes out because I'd like to use that right away, but it keeps things working smoothly, keeps my wife from complaining about problems with the computer, and minimizes the amount of time required from me to make sure things work as they should.
I see. So, three people is a consensus. I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for reminding me why I usually lurk instead of posting. I'll go back to lurking now.
Fedora is created for testing, not for everyday usage for normal people
and
Using Fedora will cripple their productivity
"Testing" == "Unstable" for most people here. Personally, I feel I'm closer to "normal people" than "nerd". I know more about computers than most people I know, but I am absolutely dwarfed by many slashdotters. I have not had to tweak Fedora to get it working at all. I turned off a few services, like bluetooth, but that doesn't require any skill. I couldn't customize iptables without quite a bit of reading. Granted, I couldn't get Fedora working on my Toshiba laptop, but this was not a short-coming limited solely to Fedora, either. I tried Ubuntu, Debian, SimplyMepis, Mandriva, OpenSUSE, Sabayon, PCLinuxOS and one or two more and they all had the same problem - unable to recognize the battery and shutdown 30 seconds after reaching the logon screen. Only Xandros would work on my laptop, but I don't like it enough to opt for that over Windows XP on my laptop. I very much doubt their productivity will be crippled since there are many people using Fedora whose productivity has not been crippled, myself included.
The point being that Fedora is geared toward home and small-business desktop machines. Redhat/CentOS is geared toward Enterprise customers. What would be the point of Redhat testing Enterprise-targeted features in a SOHO-targeted operating sysytem? They aren't going to get any useful feedback on most of those features because SOHO users won't need those features. If they do (perhaps for telecommuting or some such), they'll just use the same version of Redhat their employer has deployed in the production environment. So, please, stop spreading the myth that Fedora is Redhat's testbed because even Redhat has said that Fedora is not their testbed!
The WSJ is a newspaper written by a bunch of war-mongering, anti-civil-liberties wankers.
There, fixed that for you.
Fedora is not created for testing. My mother-in-law (who has brain damage from brain surgeries) uses it without any trouble (Yes, I set it up but I have not had any maintenance to do since I set it up almost 2 years ago). I know, I know - "Don't feed the trolls". I couldn't help myself this time.
I'm certain you earned a whooooosh.
Well, I did do some education. I explained that Firefox and Opera are both more secure than Internet Explorer.
I hadn't thought of that, but since you've mentioned it, I'll remember that for the future.
Exactly. Just two weeks ago, I had to re-install Windows on my wife's aunt's machine. It took me almost an hour to explain that the blue E is not Windows and another hour to explain that she does NOT need the blue E. I installed both Firefox (w/Adblock, Flashblock, etc) and Opera for her and showed her she doesn't need the blue E. Then, I told her not to use Internet Explorer again.
I was thinking exactly this same thing.
Oh, well. I'll just have to keep an eye out on sites like Craigslist. Maybe I'll get lucky and be able to find one there.
Actually, this sounds interesting to play around with, even though it wouldn't be remotely useful to me. I'll hop on over to my local Radio Shack this afternoon and see if they have any they'll give me.
Actually, New Hampshire is the one with the little corner that is outside of the "Constitution Free Zone". Vermont lies wholly within it. As does Massachusetts, to wit:
Some states are considered to lie completely within the zone: Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/37293res20081022.html
Actually, there is a significant difference between the two questions as worded. The original question "Does that include the basement as well or just the main floors?" indicates the main floors are used in the calculation by default AND the basement may be excluded from the calculation by default. The second question "Does that include floors other than the basement?" indicates the basement is used in the calculation by default AND that other floors may be exluded from the calculation by default. So, clearly corsec67 has a much better grasp of the English language than you do.
Not sure which distro you're using, but I don't have daily kernel updates to do. In fact, I've got 14 updates waiting for me to apply them right now and not ONE of them will require a reboot. Contrast that with having to reboot nearly every time there is an update for Windows or a program that runs in Windows. In fact, the last time I had to install Windows XP for someone (pre-SP3), I had to reboot the dmn machine 14 times before all was said and done (and that was just for WINDOWS updates and not for any programs other than WMP - Office was never installed).
Sure you can. Just like a wife would recommend against trusting her husband just because he stopped cheating on her THIS YEAR, but had cheated on her in each of the last 6 years. Just because a change has been implemented does not mean that the change is permanent. Likely, this edition of Symantec is just a temporary reprieve from the all-consuming nature of Symantec products.
The last anti-virus program I had on my Windows install was BitDefender. I felt the program protected me well and also didn't use anywhere near the same amount of resources as Norton or McAfee do. At this point, I don't even bother paying for anti-virus programs for my Windows install anymore. I'm just not logged into Windows enough for it to be worthwhile and, even when I am logged into Windows, I have its network access blocked unless I specifically need something from the Internet (Windows updates, primarily). After that, I re-block its network access. All my web surfing, updates to my wife's website, and stuff like that is all done from within Linux. Windows is probably only booted for about 2 hours a month.