Why should I take it back when it works perfectly for Linux, QNX and even Win98? Why is it never Microsoft's fault when it's products crash? I am, by many definitions, a Linux zealot, but I still don't have any problem about admitting that it isn't perfect. But here I am daring to suggest that Windows 2000 has a few problems and I'm surrounded by the sort of rabid zealotry that you Microsoft lot have long insulted the likes of me about.
Oooooh. What a lot of tantrums. And they call Linux zealots obsessive. My PC is a Compaq 5511 with a a PIII-500, ATI Rage 128, Ne2K, EMU10K, 256MB of RAM and various other extremely standard hardware. No doubt though it's Compaq's fault because Microsoft have never produced a shit OS have they?
Is this the same Windows 2000 that blue screened on me 3 times in 20 minutes with memory errors when I was trying to download a CD ISO image? You must have the non-crash US version. This (P)OS has given me more trouble than Win98, 7 different Linux distros and QNX RTP put together, starting with the 15 reboots required before it would even install.
Which is why guns should not be available to just anyone. The reason why shootings are so widespread is that it doesn't matter how many problems you have or how irresponsible you are you can still exercise your constitutional right to own a lethal weapon without having to pass any fitness tests at all. Banning guns outright is unnecessary, just don't give them to everyone.
Konqueror 2.1 is a better browser than both of them. Office 97 runs under Wine AFAIK and so the last hurdle is the games, which is now being worked on. My dad is a typical Windows user, uses it for browsing, Office work and games. But he hates Windows. Give him a way to continue doing this without having to put up with constant crashing and he'd switch in a minute. He's got Windows 2000, but it suffers from the same problems as Linux, incomplete hardware support and fewer apps and unlike Linux it still crashes randomly.
Certain game companies didn't put it on the shop shelves, at least in the UK anyway, therefore ignoring their primary method of shifting units. I know this is also down to the shops, but I see Mandrake, SuSE and RedHat boxes there, so it isn't impossible.
Let me ask you a question. If a second-tier PC manufacturer like Time here in the UK offered a PC with full Windows compatibility for $100 less do you think it would sell?
But then had Microsoft done it right in the first place then their job would be a great deal easier and their customers would benefit. What you're saying there is exactly why I'm sick of working in IT. The whole policy of 'produce a worthless piece of crap according political or marketing considerations. Then spend the next decade patching and hacking the code' makes me want to scream. There's a fundamental problem at every level of our industry which can be mitigated somewhat by coders writing good, well-commented code. The PHB effect is nothing compared to the bad programmer effect. Don't take this as an attack on Microsoft in particular because, as much as I dislike them, they are far from the only offender.
They died for freedom, not because some kid had had enough of being bullied by jocks.
Re:Virii, OS acceptance, and making fun
on
New Linux Worm
·
· Score: 2
Well that's all right then, so long as it's just those dumbass home users. What an arrogant statement. The whole Outlook virus problem is down to Microsoft and Microsoft alone, and I think they would be less despised if they just admitted it was a bad idea instead of blaming the user. But then they've got a monopoly on the desktop so to hell with their paying customers.
Re:Virii, OS acceptance, and making fun
on
New Linux Worm
·
· Score: 2
Outlook automatically executes the virus for you using a built-in scripter that has full access to your system. How is Linux crappier than that?
The point was about perspective. If DeCSS is misused the MPAA lose some money. If a gun is misused someone dies. Banning guns altogether is a bad answer, but then handing them out to just about anyone is pretty stupid as well.
It wasn't an attack on Microsoft per se, as Linux distros are perfect either. I'm just sick of having to use software that doesn't work properly. There are very few new cars that break down every day, but too many new programs do. I'm not just talking about operating systems, I'm talking about the whole ethos of releasing shit and calling it a diamond. Here's 2 examples then from each side, and remember, I'm being vendor-neutral here:
1)Windows 2000 is 4 years late and doesn't work properly.
2) A company I used to work for successfully migrated their legacy mainframe systems to SAP in 9 months with no major issues. The users, management and SAP are all amazed and delighted.
So if example 2 can produce the goods with nothing but minor errors, why can't the world's largest software house in the world with all the efficiencies of economies of scale that economists are always talking about produce something that works. This goes for every late project, bad application and buggy driver. Excuses aren't good enough. Example 2 planned and defined their requirements properly and produced well-written code. The testers then went through it with a fine toothcomb and shifted the rest of the showstopper bugs.
Most projects don't do this, but give me one good reason why not. PHB stupidity is an excuse for a bad system, not for clumsy code. A bad system with good, well-documented code can be improved upon far more easily than a good system with bad, obscure code.
Just as a disclaimer, I try to practice what I rant but I'm by no means anything better than average. I just try to think of the poor sap who'll have to maintain my code in a year's time, rather than just doing what's easiest at the time.
This is not an attack on Apple, Microsoft or anyone else specifically, but a complaint about software in general. Why is it that we would never buy a car with 63000 known defects, but Windows 2000 is acceptable because 'all software has bugs'. All software has bugs because the majority of it was written without enough forethought, too many dithering managers, users and coders and because writing a quick hack is easier than doing the job properly. No wonder IT is held in so much contempt by the common man. The product is late, incomplete and full of annoying bugs and bad ideas, and then the provider says 'well we'll fix it in the next service pack'. Not good enough.
My mum refuses to have anything to do with computers, and I don't blame her in many ways:)
When the Mandrake desktop opens up you have an icon saying 'Browse the web', an icon saying 'Connect to the Internet' and a button saying Mail. So by your logic, Mandrake is just as easy to use as OS X.
The thing about installing devices is that you generally have to have an idea of what you're doing. That's why, when my dad bought a new graphics card and hard drive it was me who installed them for him, because he was nervous about doing something he hadn't done before and preferred to let me do it. Neither OS X, Windows or Linux is going to change this, and I don't doubt that there are many, many people like my dad. I also think that my dad will have no trouble with Mandrake 8 when it comes out, apart from playing games obviously, since all his hardware is supported and he's sick to death of Windows. The upside of that being that if he does have any problems unrelated to internet access, then I can connect to his machine and fix it without him having to wait until the next time I'm there.
I agree with you about DrakConf, in that it should have a more 'generic' name, but then a tinkerer with computers will click on this icon anyway, just to see what it does.
Slashdot Mirror
Although this post is utter nonsense I still have to point out that Rexx is a newer language than C.
OS/390 is one of the worst things I've ever worked with. I can only say one thing, anything new is welcome on these machines.
What's wrong with it? I know the 8 character limitation is ludicrous, but apart from that what?
Why should I take it back when it works perfectly for Linux, QNX and even Win98? Why is it never Microsoft's fault when it's products crash? I am, by many definitions, a Linux zealot, but I still don't have any problem about admitting that it isn't perfect. But here I am daring to suggest that Windows 2000 has a few problems and I'm surrounded by the sort of rabid zealotry that you Microsoft lot have long insulted the likes of me about.
What bollocks. You can charge whatever you like for GPL'd code - you just have to provide the source with it.
Oooooh. What a lot of tantrums. And they call Linux zealots obsessive. My PC is a Compaq 5511 with a a PIII-500, ATI Rage 128, Ne2K, EMU10K, 256MB of RAM and various other extremely standard hardware. No doubt though it's Compaq's fault because Microsoft have never produced a shit OS have they?
Is this the same Windows 2000 that blue screened on me 3 times in 20 minutes with memory errors when I was trying to download a CD ISO image? You must have the non-crash US version. This (P)OS has given me more trouble than Win98, 7 different Linux distros and QNX RTP put together, starting with the 15 reboots required before it would even install.
Heh, don't mention Girl Scouts around here. ATS' bandwidth will be suddenly be flooded with a million 'resume.doc' files.
But then they have had a monopoly from the start, no-one has a Bluetooth monopoly.
Which is why guns should not be available to just anyone. The reason why shootings are so widespread is that it doesn't matter how many problems you have or how irresponsible you are you can still exercise your constitutional right to own a lethal weapon without having to pass any fitness tests at all. Banning guns outright is unnecessary, just don't give them to everyone.
Konqueror 2.1 is a better browser than both of them. Office 97 runs under Wine AFAIK and so the last hurdle is the games, which is now being worked on. My dad is a typical Windows user, uses it for browsing, Office work and games. But he hates Windows. Give him a way to continue doing this without having to put up with constant crashing and he'd switch in a minute. He's got Windows 2000, but it suffers from the same problems as Linux, incomplete hardware support and fewer apps and unlike Linux it still crashes randomly.
Certain game companies didn't put it on the shop shelves, at least in the UK anyway, therefore ignoring their primary method of shifting units. I know this is also down to the shops, but I see Mandrake, SuSE and RedHat boxes there, so it isn't impossible.
Let me ask you a question. If a second-tier PC manufacturer like Time here in the UK offered a PC with full Windows compatibility for $100 less do you think it would sell?
What's this a monopoly talking vapour to scare off potential competitors? Surely not?
But then had Microsoft done it right in the first place then their job would be a great deal easier and their customers would benefit. What you're saying there is exactly why I'm sick of working in IT. The whole policy of 'produce a worthless piece of crap according political or marketing considerations. Then spend the next decade patching and hacking the code' makes me want to scream. There's a fundamental problem at every level of our industry which can be mitigated somewhat by coders writing good, well-commented code. The PHB effect is nothing compared to the bad programmer effect. Don't take this as an attack on Microsoft in particular because, as much as I dislike them, they are far from the only offender.
They died for freedom, not because some kid had had enough of being bullied by jocks.
Well that's all right then, so long as it's just those dumbass home users. What an arrogant statement. The whole Outlook virus problem is down to Microsoft and Microsoft alone, and I think they would be less despised if they just admitted it was a bad idea instead of blaming the user. But then they've got a monopoly on the desktop so to hell with their paying customers.
Outlook automatically executes the virus for you using a built-in scripter that has full access to your system. How is Linux crappier than that?
The point was about perspective. If DeCSS is misused the MPAA lose some money. If a gun is misused someone dies. Banning guns altogether is a bad answer, but then handing them out to just about anyone is pretty stupid as well.
Yes, who cares if a few people die so long as you have the 'right' to shoot cans off a wall.
It wasn't an attack on Microsoft per se, as Linux distros are perfect either. I'm just sick of having to use software that doesn't work properly. There are very few new cars that break down every day, but too many new programs do. I'm not just talking about operating systems, I'm talking about the whole ethos of releasing shit and calling it a diamond. Here's 2 examples then from each side, and remember, I'm being vendor-neutral here:
1)Windows 2000 is 4 years late and doesn't work properly.
2) A company I used to work for successfully migrated their legacy mainframe systems to SAP in 9 months with no major issues. The users, management and SAP are all amazed and delighted.
So if example 2 can produce the goods with nothing but minor errors, why can't the world's largest software house in the world with all the efficiencies of economies of scale that economists are always talking about produce something that works. This goes for every late project, bad application and buggy driver. Excuses aren't good enough. Example 2 planned and defined their requirements properly and produced well-written code. The testers then went through it with a fine toothcomb and shifted the rest of the showstopper bugs.
Most projects don't do this, but give me one good reason why not. PHB stupidity is an excuse for a bad system, not for clumsy code. A bad system with good, well-documented code can be improved upon far more easily than a good system with bad, obscure code.
Just as a disclaimer, I try to practice what I rant but I'm by no means anything better than average. I just try to think of the poor sap who'll have to maintain my code in a year's time, rather than just doing what's easiest at the time.
The point was that misuse of DeCSS for piracy is not even close to being comparable to misuse of a gun by shooting schoolkids.
You don't have access to email or a phone then?
This is not an attack on Apple, Microsoft or anyone else specifically, but a complaint about software in general. Why is it that we would never buy a car with 63000 known defects, but Windows 2000 is acceptable because 'all software has bugs'. All software has bugs because the majority of it was written without enough forethought, too many dithering managers, users and coders and because writing a quick hack is easier than doing the job properly. No wonder IT is held in so much contempt by the common man. The product is late, incomplete and full of annoying bugs and bad ideas, and then the provider says 'well we'll fix it in the next service pack'. Not good enough.
My mum refuses to have anything to do with computers, and I don't blame her in many ways :)
When the Mandrake desktop opens up you have an icon saying 'Browse the web', an icon saying 'Connect to the Internet' and a button saying Mail. So by your logic, Mandrake is just as easy to use as OS X.
The thing about installing devices is that you generally have to have an idea of what you're doing. That's why, when my dad bought a new graphics card and hard drive it was me who installed them for him, because he was nervous about doing something he hadn't done before and preferred to let me do it. Neither OS X, Windows or Linux is going to change this, and I don't doubt that there are many, many people like my dad. I also think that my dad will have no trouble with Mandrake 8 when it comes out, apart from playing games obviously, since all his hardware is supported and he's sick to death of Windows. The upside of that being that if he does have any problems unrelated to internet access, then I can connect to his machine and fix it without him having to wait until the next time I'm there.
I agree with you about DrakConf, in that it should have a more 'generic' name, but then a tinkerer with computers will click on this icon anyway, just to see what it does.
No, that's Microsoft extending another standard to suit themselves. Smart quotes my ass.